In the first chapter of our text book “Essentials of
Contemporary Management” (Jones, George, Rock, Haddad) I have learned what the “opposable
thinking” management style is all about.
I like to think that I am a very logical guy and usually make my decisions on an "either-or" approach. However, over the course of the years I have recognized that this is not always the best way to come to a decision. I can think back of my time in the unarmed forces in Switzerland where I served as a lieutenant and had to manage 3 teams of 8 soldiers each. I could quickly see an improvement of the team's motivation and production when I allowed them to give some input before decisions had to be made. One good example is, our policy demanded that soldiers need to wear the issued boots at all times while on duty. As a lieutenant I obviously wanted everyone to follow these rules with no exceptions as there were insurance and safety concerns related to this rule. One soldier approached me one day and asked if he could wear his sneakers while driving and my initial answer was no, since this would be against the rules. He then mentioned that the shoes are dangerous since they wouldn't allow as much sensitivity while driving and he would be somewhat scared driving a team bus (which he doesn't drive most of the year) up and down the mountains with these shoes. Now this made a lot of sense to me and I haven't thought about this before, so from that day on I have allowed all my soldiers to wear sneakers while driving. They would still have to wear the safety shoes at all times, except for driving.
Since I started working in 2000, I have been working for 3
companies with 5 different managers on 2 different continents. Looking back at
these 5 positions, every manager was different. So far, I worked as an
Aircraft mechanic, as a Material Coordinator, a Maintenance Technician, a Buyer
and again as a Material Coordinator. Given the very diverse jobs I had, it is
hard to compare all these managers. They all had to be very different since the
tasks for these positions were very different:
As an Aircraft Mechanic, for every bolt I tightened, every
inspection I did, there was a piece of paper explaining what tools to use, what
task to do first, second, third and so on. In order to change fan blades on an engine for example, there wasn’t much room to do the task different or
incomplete. So our supervisor had to make sure we are motivated and work well
as team. The task structure was extremely high and all of us were absolutely
able to perform our tasks since we all had very specific training. So all our
supervisor had to do was “Participating” and “Delegating”. Most days we would
just each get our package of paperwork at shift start and not see our
supervisor again until the end of the shift since we all were passionate about aircrafts and the paperwork told us exactly what and how to do our tasks.
As a Material Coordinator / Buyer things aren’t always as
straight forward. I am still at the beginning of my administrative career and
my purchasing limit is fairly low. So every time a bigger purchase has to be
done, my supervisor needs to be “Selling”. I might be willing to complete the
purchasing task, but unable, since I have a lack of experience (for example in
setting up contracts and negotiating) and I also don’t have the authority to go
about it on my own. This is where I need to work together with my supervisor and
learn from him as I complete tasks with him.
Given my past, it is hard for me to say how much management
roles have changed since I started working, but in my particular case, I have definitely
seen different types of management
styles, which where appropriate for different situations and environments.
One thing I have noticed is that many companies become flatter
with fewer Managers. This means that more Managers have to empower their
employees in certain areas and hand down some of the responsibilities in order
to fulfill their new responsibilities.
The step from an employee to a First-Line Manager seems to
be the most challenging. Because the technical skills required for such a
position are very high, it takes many years of experience before this step can be
taken. Once in Management, I do think it won’t be as much of a step anymore to
move up to a middle management position, since technical skills, human
skills and conceptual skills have been developed for many years by then and the
individual will be much more mature.
Hello Stephan,
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that people from different cultural backgrounds are motivated by different things. For example, a former Russian co-worker was highly motivated by learning new technical skills, but could not care less about social intelligence. A former boss from Singapore was very concerned with strict hierarchy and respect for authority. She was motivated by order and control, and discouraged any innovation or creativity which she viewed as disrespectful and unfocused work ethic.
Are people in Switzerland and Canada motivated by similar things? I have only worked in North America, so I am curious if the same traits that make someone a successful manager in Canada, would apply to Switzerland?
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question you ask. I do think there are many similarities in what motivates a Canadian employee and a Swiss employee, but I also do see differences sometimes.
To me it is hard to generalize for both countries. I think for both countries, you have already given the answer to some degree. Canada and Switzerland both have a high percentage of Immigrants and therefore many different cultures mixed together.
While this mix certainly brings many challenges to Managers, I also see many opportunities to use the different strengths and weaknesses to build great teams.
We would have to ask other students what motivates them and what their culture background is, in order to see differences, but even then it would probably not be representative.