The theory of “management” has succeeded a lot in analyzing the behavior of leaders, in studying the causes of their successes and failures, in systematizing knowledge of how to develop strong qualities of these, and fight weak ones.
We pay special attention to foreign theorists. Ask your boss what to read on this topic, or ask them to name their “favorite book.” Surely you will hear the names of Goldratt, Adizes, Machiavelli … I have repeatedly been convinced personally that the “invaluable knowledge” gleaned from these books will forever erase the school curriculum from the minds of “leaders”. A person with difficulty and already incorrectly answers the question “What is the root of 9 and -9?” … But this is a separate conversation.
In my opinion, the domestic management classic Vladimir Tarasov, who studied this topic from the late Soviet era, perfectly revealed it in his work, especially in the books “Personal Management Art”, “Eight Steps of Management Skill”. To begin acquaintance with “management”, which, by definition, is “The art of doing work with the wrong hands” (sic), I would recommend the latter.
But if hands do not reach serious literature, but you need to understand the subject for a “quick start” or just out of interest, you should extract a clear picture from a confusing topic at first glance. This is what we will do.
Consider just two “managers”. The first is Tarasov’s “ideal leader,” of whom only one thing is known – that he is. The second type, let’s call it Zavkhoz – the antipode of the first. On their opposition, the study of their motives – we will build a theory, and understanding their values - we will find out the reason for their differences.
So. Both understand that the position is temporary. Or leave / take off, or raise higher. But the first one is confident in himself, which means they will raise it, therefore he sets himself the task of leaving behind a clearly working structure, in which there will be no immediate need for himself. The second – is afraid that this is the ceiling, or just tired and wants to linger on it. Hence there is a big difference in approaches.
To delegation. The goal of the first is not to become indispensable. And he delegates, necessarily endowing subordinates with real responsibility. Delegated delegation – creates organizational structures. Its ultimate goal is to delegate EVERYTHING. He will be responsible for the final result, but he will receive it – by the wrong hands. In case of victory, such a leader will tell the team: it is YOU who won. And it will be sincere.
The second – can delegate execution, but not responsibility. All the paper will pass through itself, will delve into every little thing. Well, like a typical supply manager. He subconsciously wishes to be irreplaceable!
To the training of immediate subordinates. The first one is learning himself and striving to educate the rest. Because qualified subordinates are absolutely necessary for business and career. In the first place – the transfer of personal experience, systematic meetings, the analysis of “flights”.
Supply manager – he himself did not open the book for a long time. Perhaps inclined to be jealous of success. Surely believes that subordinates already know everything, since they were in their posts. If he organizes a meeting, then most likely not to teach, but to show himself!
To the freedom of managerial decision making. Subordinates work independently, without looking at the leader, although they are well aware that if significant deviations occur, he will delve into their work and do it professionally. Operational issues, including financial – decide for yourself.
At the manager, the opposite. A minimum of independence, he affirms all decisions. Try not to bring it for signature and don’t agree on your decision, purchase, premium! ..
Responsible for their own and others’ mistakes. First: we failed, but it is my fault. Rather, it will punish not the guilty one, but his leader.
The second – organizes a commission, and appointing the guilty does not include itself in the order of punishment.
To the documentation. The first professes the principle of “knowledge must belong to the company.” Technological and organizational processes – documented. Not formally, but for real. There is a knowledge base, quality records …
Zavkhoz has a very formal attitude to documentation. Those. she can eat – for show. The culture of the team “by standards” is weak (actual work may differ from documented).
To people. And this is the most important. Although both seek to surround themselves with the right people, the first does not complex if they meet smarter / more talented. It’s easier to find a successor and solve the main problem! He will say: “Cadres decide everything” (C). He will say sincerely, because he values everyone, values and relies on trust. If you decide to fire – with heaviness in your heart it will do it PERSONALLY.
The second – requires loyalty. One can hear from him – “there are no irreplaceable people”, “find the irreplaceable and dismiss”, etc. And it is very possible that the severity of the dismissal will try to shift to the shoulders of the subordinate. It may well hint: “the subordinate should not be smarter than the boss” (quiet drift towards complete dishonesty). Therefore, next to him there is often no replacement. He wanted to be indispensable, and he became one!
… You can continue to continue. Since the REASONS are clear, it is not difficult to imagine possible consequences. I think you understand everything perfectly. The characters are idealized, perhaps only found in literature. It’s wonderful to get to the N-th level of leadership on Tarasov, but being a Zavkhoz is not bad, and sometimes it is vital. In the end, the work of the “manager” is evaluated by the result of the work of his team: output volume, company profit …
But a decent and completely honest man is likely to take the first path. The most difficult thing in management is to fulfill the role of a leader and remain a decent person. Position – taken independently, if taken. Decency – is given from above, if given. (С)