Blogging about Management

Hi all,

Before going to bed, I wanted to finish this day with some glorious thoughts that may lead to a potential discussion. So the fact that our upcoming class (10/17) will focus on the complexity of employee relations and how leadership style and the changes of style can improve the effectiveness of staff management, I told myself, “before proceeding, I should start by drawing the line between the concepts of leadership and management. Are they the same? Or are they different? Or better yet, how different or similar are these two definitions?” As I was doing some research to answer this question, I bumped into an interesting article I found in the Wall Street Journal. The article begins with a blunt statement “Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.”

Then, in a 1989 book by Warren Bennis “On Becoming a Leader,” the article lays out the following differences in a very clear way:

– The manager administers; the leader innovates.

– The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

– The manager maintains; the leader develops.

– The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

– The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

– The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

– The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

– The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon.

– The manager imitates; the leader originates.

– The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

– The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

– The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

Based on what I’ve learned in class, this makes sense. For instance, in class we have seen the structure of organizations, groups etc. The person at the top usually holds a managerial position, but does that make him a leader? Structure may be the design in which the organization is built upon, but I would say that people are the energy, the spirit that gives life to the organization. Given these thoughts, I can connect it with the following: “manager focuses on system and structure while the leader focuses on people.” Both managers and leaders are some sort of compasses suited for different functions. The manager focuses on the necessary design and builds the road to direct and facilitate the work and the goal of the team. A leader is the one that sparks the necessary spirit to make the organization work appropriately while also keeping a sense of purpose. Without management, a driven team may not have direction, without a leader, a well-deigned structure may not have the power for which it was built for in the first place. Just like “management go hand in hand” I think structure and people go hand in hand as well. If we have two concepts, therefore I believe that there is a relationship between these two actions,  there’s got to be an interesting balance between the two. Too much focus on the structure may create a negative bureaucracy, compromising the efficiency of the institution, while too much focus on the people may create conflict and unnecessary politics. These are thoughts that came up to mind, and I will appreciate anyone who can bring their own thoughts. Whether there is an agreement of disagreement, anything is appreciated!

Thanks a lot, best always!

Andres

Earlier in the semester, we were read a posting of an employee who went away on vacation and left an away message stating that she was out of the office.  Her boss emailed her and basically informed her that she would need to respond to messages while away and that her away message was not professional.  I was one that was adamant about not having to answer your boss back being that you deserve your full vacation experience.  My tune is changing since at work this week, I have been trying to contact several doctors and they all have various away messages.  I feel like the boss.  Is anyone working around here?  With the various away messages however, I think there is a correct way and a wrong way to leave away messages.

In one of the clinician’s away message, it simply stated that “I will be away from 10/5 – 10/15 and will not be responding to emails nor phone calls.”  Now that I thought was totally absurd.  If I am a social worker or a school counselor for example trying to coordinate care on one of our high risk patients and I got that away message, who would I attempt to contact?  In another clinician’s away message, who was away on the same conference, they stated that they would “be away 10/5 – 10/15 and would be responding to urgent emails only.  For routine issues that can not wait, please contact Dr. X who is covering my patients at (212) 555-5555.”  Now, although this clinician is out the same time as the previous clinician, I believe this away message was handled more professionally.  It gave a covering doctor and it made me feel at ease that atleast if something major were to occur that this doctor would read about it if I were to write an email about it.

All doctors are supposed to use the email address provided by the hospital when it comes to sharing the hospital’s patient info.  Since my hospital is a teaching hospital, many of the doctors have their med school’s email addresses as well.   The hospital’s email is not really convenient, I must admit, especially in the age of smart phones where email can be linked directly to your phones and tablets.  The method of reaching these doctors has been emailing their med school email addresses if you wanted a speedy response.  This is not the correct way of doing things however.  In trying to follow the proper protocol I emailed a doctor at their hospital’s email.  My email was answered with an automated response message which stated that “I do not check this email often.  If you need me, please contact me at john_doe@medschool’s name.com ”  This left me quite confused because if audited the hospital could be fined for a violation of patient information.  This doctor could have just had his hospital email forwarded to his medical school’s email address like I am sure many of them do.  To put that you do not even check your email was so offsetting in my opinion.  In the rise in integrating technology into our structures, we need to learn the “dos and donts” of email.  Once viral, things can not be taken back and things are forwarded every day.  What messages are we sending to others with these away messages? There is a right way and a wrong way.  I think there needs to be an email etiquette 101 course established at each job!

Am I to understand that the differences between Public and Private Management is that Government/ Public management tend to have relavitevly short time horizons dictated by the duration of a political calendar and private management have a longer time horizon or agenda dedicated towards market developments? The question would be even in a political or public policy planning agenda would’nt the same long term planning as the private management sector be the same, so why is there a distinction between the two?

I understand that politicians have term limits but on the whole I think every organization must have some long term planning policy even after term limits have expired.

RGB

During our class discussion of M. Weber last Thursday, we mentioned the idea of meritocracy, which is crediting a person based on his/her achievements and merit.  The opposite of meritocracy is patronage, which is the assigning of positions or work based on relationship with the “people on top.”  Our short discussion reminded me how rampant patronage is in the Philippines (where I am originally from).  It is common that the people working within the organization are related to one another, or friends of someone within.  Networking is essential in finding a good job or moving through the ranks.  If one doesn’t have “connections,” it takes a VERY long time for that person to get into the organization or be promoted to a higher position.

Philippine patronage system is very interesting and complicated organizational issue as the practice is embedded, and accepted, in the culture and society.  The Philippine practice of patronage dates back during the Spanish colonization in 1400s, when Filipinos had to build strong connections with their colonizers to keep their positions or businesses.  This practice has been passed from one generation to the other until the present day.  Business or organizational management are passed down within family or close friends.  In addition, the tight-knit family culture encourages the system, mostly in businesses, because owners believe that their family members understand the business more, therefore should be in good hands.  The idea of family loyalty also makes a case for patronage.  An owner believes that, compared to an outsider, family members would want the best for the business, since the business is seen as a family treasure.

Patronage system never sat well with me.  In the Philippines, patronage system might have made small organizations/businesses to the big successful family corporations they are now.  However, I see patronage as promoting incompetence and ineffectiveness as individuals neglect merit and hard-work.  In addition, patronage creates a negative mentality on other workers that even though they work hard, their efforts will not be recognized.  Both these effects negatively affect the development and growth of the organization as it does not promote for an individual to better himself within the organization.

As above-mentioned, patronage may have its advantages in creating a successful organization; and meritocracy have its own disadvantages, which I am not discussing in this blog.  However, like everything else, an organization must strive to balance between meritocracy and patronage to have a successful organization.

Welcome to PAF 9120 and the class blog.

This summer I read Management Rewired, a recent addition to the popular management literature. Using the findings of neuroscience, Charles Jacobs provides another refutation of the managerial assumptions established at the turn of the last century that continue to dominate our present approach to management. Jacobs demonstrates that the functioning of our brains does not necessarily lead to straightforward rational responses. Rewards, for example, are always motivating, and feedback does not always change behavior.  Our responses are dictated by past experience and our brains efforts to make new experiences conform to the ways we experience the world. Rewards may not hold unique meaning because they are expected, or we believe they are deserved. Inversely, feedback may threaten our sense of self and result in passivity or aggression. The net result is that how we manage and are managed are typically at odds with how we should manage and would like to be managed.

Jacobs’ challenge to managers is the need to rethink how we work with people if we are to be effective in our work. Although not grounded in neuroscience, this class raises the same sets of concerns. We need to understand why we default to authoritative control despite the efficacy of more participative modes of management. We need to understand the myriad ways to build participation into our management of organizations if we are to be successful.