CONGRUENT MANAGEMENT STYLES

             The congruent management styles for each level and the consequences of mismanaging are:

            Automatic Level (A-N) – NURTURING:

            The only appropriate style of management for the first level is to nurture. Failure to nurture will result in death of the managed. There are virtually no A-N’s in the American work force.

            Tribalistic Level (B-O) – FRIENDLY PARENT:

            Productive effort from the second-level person can only be obtained when the work is not negated by superstition or taboo; since the world is so replete with them, work effort is often spotty and sporadic. The manager must accept the individual’s style of life and then present a model of what is desired. The model is the “friendly parent” who works alongside, shelters the person, makes the work fun and pleasant, and above all respects and observes the taboos. Subordinates at the B-O level must be isolated from anyone in the work group who will not accept the individual’s way of life, who scoffs at the taboos and who wants to be competitive.

            Productive effort is limited in terms of typical industrial thinking since the concepts of time, space, quantity, materiality, and the life are woefully wanting. The close and immediate supervision required, the limited time span of work that can be expected, and other necessary accommodations do not provide a formula for productive effort. The portion of employees at this level in the American work force is less than a few percent. They find the job experience tremendously frightening in most situations and actively avoid it if at all possible. However, when properly managed employees at this level will work hard and long.

            Management at this level causes the subordinates to flee from the manager and organization. No attempts at disruption or sabotage will be made on the mismanaged persons’ part. However, if the manager or organization attempts to coerce the second-level person to a desired work behavior the pressured individual is likely to “exorcise” the evil now so readily apparent.

             Egocentric Level (C-P) – TOUGH-PATERNALISTIC:

             This level of existence is more familiar to American managers than the previous two. A subordinate at the Egocentric level knows how to do the job, shows pride and personal ability in the task (no matter the degree of skill, education, or knowledge required), and has to feel free to come and go as desired. The desired management style is TOUGH-PATERNALISTIC. It communicates to the Egocentric subordinate a two-fold message; (1) that the manager probably could do a better job,  (2) however, your capabilities are respected and, therefore, you may do the job. The manager assigns tasks to subordinates at the C-P level in this “tough” manner – providing enough specific detail to define the desired end results, establish limits to subordinate discretion, and set the completion date. The manager keeps out of things unless asked. The manager’s trust is not blindly total, but based on performance. To blindly trust an Egocentric is to show you are a weak fool, not to be respected for your toughness, and to be taken advantage of at will – the subordinates will. The manager must estimate how long the managed needs to prove the stated competence without resulting in successive risk or cost. At the end of this period the performance is evaluated. If the task is right, the Egocentric is competent in that area. If the task is wrong or poorly done the TOUGH PATERNALISTIC style requires the manager to assign the employee to a task in line with the demonstrated competence or dismiss the employee if of no value to the organization. The development of increased competence on the part of the Egocentric employee is done by assigning that person to an apprenticeship position under a master with no specified training period or program.

            Mismanagement of the third level person can come about by applying a management style that is too restrictive, the typical authoritarian (Theory X) Manager. This is a direct affront to the C-P’s pride, a putdown of competence, and a general “getting on my back” situation. Management of this sort will result in the individual leaving the organization. However, the parting will usually be violent and often focused on the immediate source of displeasure – the mismanaging manger. The departing Egocentric is not coolly calculating the “price” due for discomfort, but rather immediately expressing individual frustration and personal hate. If the individual is not able to leave, the manager will be subjected to a continuing barrage of overt hostility in which every weapon is used and little restraint is shown.

             Another form of mismanagement is one in which the C-P subordinate has no respect for the manager due to the manager’s failure to establish the tough, competent, no fool image. In this case, the subordinates will do exactly what that person pleases. Or, since there is no pride in being involved with such losers, the Egocentric will leave to seek out an organization (or manager) with opportunity for pride and excitement.

previous <<  |  7  |  >> next