I need your valuable comments on ratings of the managerial skills of a manager in the following two situations.
a) A department is working well in the presence of manager (A) and 12 co-workers. One fine day, the manager decides to move from the organization, and still, the department and the system work smoothly for the next 3 months.
b) A department is working well in the presence of manager (B) and 12 co-workers. One fine day, the manager decides to move from the organization, and the department and the system crash after two weeks.
In both cases, co-workers remain regular employees in the organization.
Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
a) A department is working well in the presence of manager (A) and 12 co-workers. One fine day, the manager decides to move from the organization, and still, the department and the system work smoothly for the next 3 months.
b) A department is working well in the presence of manager (B) and 12 co-workers. One fine day, the manager decides to move from the organization, and the department and the system crash after two weeks.
In both cases, co-workers remain regular employees in the organization.
Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Alla,
In case A, a definite situation is under the manager's control in his absence as well as presence, as he/she is in the system. However, in case B, it's not the manager but the management who will be responsible for the crash. Your unique perspective sets you apart from other posts. Keep posting.
Vini K
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In case A, a definite situation is under the manager's control in his absence as well as presence, as he/she is in the system. However, in case B, it's not the manager but the management who will be responsible for the crash. Your unique perspective sets you apart from other posts. Keep posting.
Vini K
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Allahrakha ,
Referring to the 2 cases presented here, my inference would be as follows:-
Manager A: A “GOOD MANGER”. A people as well as process oriented person. He has facilitated result orientation, role clarity and delegation in the team. His effective team management has resulted in the team executing the job efficiently even in his absence. He is a manager who could prove to be a good coach as well as a mentor.
Manager B: Could be an “AUTOCRATIC / INEFFECTIVE MANAGER” leader. A manager who has not guided the team with respect to their roles and responsibility or shared work activities. Also there is a possibility hat the process or system he has put in place involves his “APPROVAL” to a great extent and hence in his absence the system crashes. On the second hand the team does not execute the task due to existing team conflicts or lack of co-ordination which have been left unresolved.
Please add or comment to my inferences.
Ashwini Rege
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1Referring to the 2 cases presented here, my inference would be as follows:-
Manager A: A “GOOD MANGER”. A people as well as process oriented person. He has facilitated result orientation, role clarity and delegation in the team. His effective team management has resulted in the team executing the job efficiently even in his absence. He is a manager who could prove to be a good coach as well as a mentor.
Manager B: Could be an “AUTOCRATIC / INEFFECTIVE MANAGER” leader. A manager who has not guided the team with respect to their roles and responsibility or shared work activities. Also there is a possibility hat the process or system he has put in place involves his “APPROVAL” to a great extent and hence in his absence the system crashes. On the second hand the team does not execute the task due to existing team conflicts or lack of co-ordination which have been left unresolved.
Please add or comment to my inferences.
Ashwini Rege
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Well said, Ashwani.
At the same time, there is something else also attached to this. As HR professionals, we always tend to avoid case (B). This area needs to be explored more. Seeking your comments in that direction too.
Regards, Allahrakha
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
At the same time, there is something else also attached to this. As HR professionals, we always tend to avoid case (B). This area needs to be explored more. Seeking your comments in that direction too.
Regards, Allahrakha
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think what needs to be probed into are the reasons for the non-performance of the team. One could start by having an interaction with the team members to understand the situation better. This could bring to light their concerns/issues.
These issues could be pertaining to the previous boss, current work system, conflicts within the team, and/or a sign of retaliation. Then depending on the reason(s), one would have to dig deeper to understand the gravity of the issue and the damage caused.
Ashwini Rege
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
These issues could be pertaining to the previous boss, current work system, conflicts within the team, and/or a sign of retaliation. Then depending on the reason(s), one would have to dig deeper to understand the gravity of the issue and the damage caused.
Ashwini Rege
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
I agree with Ashwini's reasons stated for the issue. Just adding two more points from manager (B)'s psychological point of view:
a) Manager (B)'s lack of affective commitment to the organization might have resulted in such a result. He worked for the sake of work in the organization (normative commitment).
b) Manager (B) might have perceived it as a threat to empower his subordinates or needed always to be known as the lone talented player in the organization.
c) Manager (B)'s lack of leadership skills has clearly been exhibited.
The above-stated points are the frequently seen reasons for such a situation (fact is based on research).
Regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Ashwini's reasons stated for the issue. Just adding two more points from manager (B)'s psychological point of view:
a) Manager (B)'s lack of affective commitment to the organization might have resulted in such a result. He worked for the sake of work in the organization (normative commitment).
b) Manager (B) might have perceived it as a threat to empower his subordinates or needed always to be known as the lone talented player in the organization.
c) Manager (B)'s lack of leadership skills has clearly been exhibited.
The above-stated points are the frequently seen reasons for such a situation (fact is based on research).
Regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The reward system in the organization doesn't seem to give much importance to a Manager's efforts towards subordinate capability development. There is simply no incentive for him/her to 'let go'. Manager A is confident of his capabilities and therefore not unduly worried about his team being able to function without him. This is not the case with B.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good managers always improve systems and procedures. If a manager leaves the organization, routine work may not be disrupted. Similarly, some positions are very important, and day-to-day decisions are involved. In such cases, problems may arise from the first day, which may not be due to the manager but rather the position.
Best regards,
smr
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Best regards,
smr
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
We all know that in CASE (B), either the manager is ineffective or the motivational needs of the manager were not supplied regularly. But I want to ask, even after knowing the fact, why most of us try to retain the managers (even after knowing the ineffectiveness) falling under CASE (B)?
Need more comments from all the members.
Regards,
Allahrakha
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We all know that in CASE (B), either the manager is ineffective or the motivational needs of the manager were not supplied regularly. But I want to ask, even after knowing the fact, why most of us try to retain the managers (even after knowing the ineffectiveness) falling under CASE (B)?
Need more comments from all the members.
Regards,
Allahrakha
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello,
The difference in both cases is the rapport between the co-workers and the manager. In the first case, there is an understanding - the manager was employee-oriented, that's why they had no problem even after the manager left because the work process was based on the decisions of both sides.
In the second case, it was only one-sided, that is on the side of manager (B) - he only makes the decisions. Simply put, in the first scenario, there is participation of employees as well as manager (A), while in the second, there is no participation of employees as well as manager (B).
With regards,
Praveen Kumar Valbooj
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The difference in both cases is the rapport between the co-workers and the manager. In the first case, there is an understanding - the manager was employee-oriented, that's why they had no problem even after the manager left because the work process was based on the decisions of both sides.
In the second case, it was only one-sided, that is on the side of manager (B) - he only makes the decisions. Simply put, in the first scenario, there is participation of employees as well as manager (A), while in the second, there is no participation of employees as well as manager (B).
With regards,
Praveen Kumar Valbooj
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Top-4-high-impa ct-team-and-lea dership-activit ies.pdf
TEAM BUILDING LEADERSHIP SKILLS.ppt