Great leadership advice from The First-Time Manager
:It is difficult to believe that we still see the old-fashioned autocrat in management today. You have to wonder why this is so. Partly it has to do with the fact that so many managers are given no training. They are left to find their own way, so they begin acting as they think they should. They think in terms of being a “boss.”
Autocrats also believe that if they take the softer approach, employees will take advantage. It is as though the softer approach will be seen as a sign of weakness.
Another possibility is that it takes more time to be a diplomatic manager. These managers spend time with people explaining not only what is to be done but why it’s done. The boss type doesn’t want to be bothered. This person’s attitude is “Do it because I said so.” The diplomat realizes that the more people understand of what and why, the better they perform.
The autocrat wants to make every decision and views the staff as making robotic responses to his or her commands. The autocrat pushes the buttons, the staff snaps to, and it happens. The diplomat knows that the time spent up front, getting everybody involved, pays off with huge dividends down the road.
The autocrat engenders fear while the diplomat builds respect and even affection. The autocrat causes people to mutter under their breath, “Someday, I’ll get even with this SOB.” The diplomat causes people to say, “He respects us and cares for us. I’d walk the last mile for him. All he needs to do is ask.”
The autocrat believes the diplomat is a wimp. The diplomat believes the autocrat is a dictator. The difference is that the autocrat uses authority constantly, while the diplomat is judicious in its display.
People working for the autocrat believe they are working for someone. Those reporting to the diplomat believe they are working with someone.(HT: Matt Perman)
1 comment:
Interesting post. I'd like to note that during the initial interviewing/ hiring process many applicants assume the position of "worker", i.e. someone that has no power and authority, and one who is ready to "follow orders".
With that said, I think it could be somewhat disingenuous for an employee to later complain or desire a different hierarchical process than the one for which they signed up.
In fact, both approaches can work if people play the role for which they "signed up", and not try to change the approach of someone else's company. I think of successful Asian and Middle Eastern Companies as examples of the "autocratic" approach.
Moreover, I find that many want to be bosses themselves but do not want to expend the time, energy, and capital needed to launch out on their own. So, instead they remain on a team or at a company with whose values, approach, etc. they do not agree.
In short, as a Christian , I believe we should just quietly and respectfully fulfill the duties of the position for which we've been hired, understanding that the emphasis is on "hired", not partner etc. And if things are such that they can or need to go elsewhere, then so be it. But while a worker, fulfill the duties of a worker and don't worry about how someone else chooses to run their organization, or spend their capital. So what, just be a faithful employee, not attempting to find identification or personal significance in our work per se, but instead finding those things in Christ. I believe that this approach will produce more contented workers, at least among the Christian community, and will lessen, to some degree, the negative connotation of autocrat, which I note to be political terms carrying political imagery and all of the attendant baggage. But that's another topic.
Thank you.
Cyrus
Post a Comment