Difference between revisions of "Managers"

Latest revision as of 12:18, 1 May 2017

Managers in the deliberation theory are members of the group that are responsible for decision making and motivating group members accordaning to the decided direction. In order to achieve their goals they have to be good at decision making and in their ability to motivate and supervise other members to advance along the lines of decisions made by the managers.

Managers will be evaluated by higher mangers for their ability to promte their intrests, and to play politics in a way that will cause things to happen. Mangers do this by knoweing people and engaing them in a way that motivate them to do what the managers want.

Efficient management

• Social aspects – turning on the hive switch
  • Making the movement visible, massive and rewarding. Make the improvement visible.
  • Make the change go along the values of the group and it's stake holders.
  • Creating social capital.
  • Giving daily rest, weekly rest and monthly rest: create social capital on these rests.
  • diminshing negative organizational politics.
• ROI
  • Making people go along with a clear plan, and clear vision, and effective course of action, which seems to be optimal for group members. make every effort cost effective and socially rewarding.
• Optimizing human resources
  • division of responsibilities, according to merits.
  • Clear reward system, acourding to the values and needs of the organization.
  • efficient collaborative decision making systems:
    • For each unit (a team, a department, a division, the whole organization, stakeholders).
    • Intervals and special occasions (daily, weekly, monthly quarter etc..).
  • Solving disputes.

One on one talks : an effective way to gather SON on your organization ^[1]

Difficulties in Management

Managers are evaluated by other members of the group, and especialy by higher ranck managers, to their ability to "make things happen". Because managers are promoted by their precived ability they may tend to show-off their abilities in extravagnat ways. In some ways, managers how show-off, tend to be in some level of narcissism. It was found by some research (that I couldn't find) that overconfident are more likely to get hired then less confident managers, and this causes the bias toward overconfident managers.Narcissits are percived as attractive and leaders at first sight^[2]. It was shown that narcissists tend to become leaders and are perceived as leaders, by other members of the group^[3].Narcissists are overconfident and less empathic then ordinary people. exhibitionist narcissists seeks perfect admiration all the time from others, to build their concealed inconfidence.

Narcissism seem to be caused by threatened egotism, which depicts aggression as a means of defending a highly favorable view of self against someone who seeks to undermine or discredit that view^[4]. Although the research on narcissism seems to be lacking, from my experience, narcissism seems to be caused by high level of euphoria which are caused by overdose of dopamine, and from low self-esteem, which need to be guarded. This may be the reason that most of the managers I met with were most sensitive to criticism.

To overcome the lack of real abilities, caused by over-confidence, managers will use organizational politics. They will try to look important, and very-busy.Thy will blame other of lack of good work, They will use exclusive knowledge, as an advantage to manipulate the system to their needs, while preventing from non-colation mambers this knowledge. They will use this knowledge as a resource in exchange to other benefits. They will connect to the higher rancks managment, and they will show that they have good connections to higher powers in the organization^[5].

I suspect that Managers in big organizations will be more of the A type (also called alpha dominance or doers). The Type A managers will be goal orinted and there fore will stress the system.They will consult less with their workers.

Difficulties in management will arise when the managers are not well adjusted making decisions or motivating their workers and other managers in the organization. When a manager takes decisions which are perceived by other members as bad decisions, her legitimacy will decline. When she is unable to motivate workers and managers, her status might be challenged. In order to compensate on inability to make appropriate decisions and motivating other members, often managers tend to use force. They might talk in a threatening voice, and may imply that they may fire whom who do not obay. They will try to gain power and make others comply to their will, because they hold resources or power that is important to others. For instance a manager that may have decision power on who will go to a vacation or not, will use this power to achieve the compliance of other members who need or want to go to a vacation.

Managers, who have the lack of ability to motivate others, may be very stressed and react accordingly.

Organization with ill adjust managers will take bad decisions and will very stressful and inconvenient place to work in. It's overall ROI may be lower relative to a group with better suited managers.

Control freaks

Some managers are freak control. I suggest that their FFFF is very active. They understand any criticizem as threat. They understand that somebody is not acting as they want he is threatening their success, so they attack him. I suggest that most of the control freaks, have trouble engaging other people in deliberative maner, so they use power or manipulation to control other. An illustrative example are the couple in Kitchen Nightmares - Amy's Baking Company.

Middle layer executive resistance to change

In many cases I observed the following phenomena. A new solution is being developed by a worker in the lower ranks, and the CEO hear about it and adopt it. She then try to implement the solution, and find that her organization reject it. The resistance seems to come from the middle layer of the executive. For years I tried to understand the reason for that, but just lately I find a theory that may explain this phenomena.

Managers are suppose to dominate there sphere. To do so they use a combination of the sphere professional knowledge, and a network of support from other managers and workers that influence their sphere. When a new solution is suggested in their sphere, they are most likely reject it due to the new knowledge they will have to acquire in order to adopt the solution, and the shift in balance that the new solution may cause^[6].

To solve this problem, an organizational change should be supported by the higher management, and the change should take time for the mangers to adjust to.

creating better communication

To give workers the peace of mind need to do their job, managers use to handle politics in the background, without the workers attention. But this habit has flows. To be able to decide, workers need to understand the decision making system in the group. So they gossip to understand. And because gossip is also used for collations struggle, the information in the gossip-network tends to skew for slanders. This causes the organization to be perceived as having bad politics.

To solve it, I suggest that a better communication between the partners should be developed. Better understanding of how people can cooperate. This should be a quest for better communication within organization.

Empathy vs. use of power

Some managers know how to lead their workers, and though, use charisma, while other who don't know how to lead, use shouting and their power. Shouting is a sign for using FFFF, while calm voice is a sign for using PFC.

Forcing Agreement to Manage Groups

To achieve group dynamic and well oriented cooperation, people on the group should have high levels of agreement. To do so, managers tend to seek agreement, by listening, and looking for an agreed process by the stake holders. If such agreement is not reachable, they will try to promote agreements, by talking lengthy, by using rhetoric to disregard differences, and trying to take out people who create disbarments in the group. I suggest that radical liberals, "free spirits" and "loose cannons" will be the first to suffer from such activity.

This may be the reason Elders are thrown out of work places. They may have more knowledge then their mangers, and therefore will make it difficult to reach an agreement.

See also

meetings

Read also

Type A and Type B managers

Further development:

• Mangment styles
• how to motivate emploeeys
• CEO suggest in his book, that managers are more psychopaths

References