In his article entitled “Leadership, Controllership, and
Wimpership,” Paul E. Hadinger has identified three basic management styles of
those holding positions of authority and power over others in a company setting.
In the article, the author is able to easily
identify the characteristics of both controllers and wimps, but understandably struggles
with identifying a similar list for the characteristics of a leader.
Since reading the article, I have been considering this
issue – why is it so difficult to spell out more precisely the characteristics
of a leader? Before coming to this,
perhaps a review of the author’s comments regarding controllers and wimps is in
order.
The one phrase from the article that struck me as the most
accurate description of a controller is “…controllers seem to want to know
about as many things as possible in case anything could become a threat or a
challenge to their power and control (and their personal security).”
The author identifies many possible character deficiencies
in controllers, some of which are certain to be found in such a manager. I will not reproduce the list here, but it is
worth a review. In my experience the key
is that controllers like to control. Controllers
desire to dictate, to make every decision, to be sure to be involved and
knowledgeable about every activity of those over which he has authority. The controller desires that all good results
are seen by his superiors as having come from him
As to wimps, the fundamental characteristic is that these
types of managers have difficulty with conflict. They want to go along and get along, avoiding
difficult decisions.
Coming to leaders, the author does not have an exhaustive
list as he does for the other two types.
However, he captures some of the critical characteristics of a leader:
A true leader commands respect by
not only how he or she functions as a leader, but by being a person of
integrity and good character whose words and actions can be trusted, and one
who can be counted upon to be fair on a consistent basis.
Anyone who is successful as a
leader usually has very good communication skills, and is able to achieve
shared understanding with those with whom he speaks. Good communication skills
are also required to mentor and teach others to become better leaders and
better employees. A leader talks WITH people, not AT them.
When one considers the characteristics of a good leader, one
must look at it from the point of view of those being led – those to whom the
leader reports are not seeing (and cannot see) the most important leadership
skills in action. What is it that
employees are looking for from their day-to-day leader? In my experience, some of the keys include consistency
in objectives, focus, regular and honest communication, leeway about getting a
job done and deciding priorities, and a true establishment of the principle
that we are all in this together. It goes
without saying that above-average general business skills are a mandatory
requirement for anyone rising to such a position.
What strikes me is that while the positive aspects of the controller’s
skills are visible to (and valued by) those to whom the controller reports, the
positive aspects of the leader’s skills are primarily visible to (and valued
by) those who report to the leader.
Conversely, the controller is at best tolerated (at worst despised) by
many of those reporting to him, while the leader is willingly followed and genuinely
respected by his employees.
The difference in employee attitude and behavior toward
these two types is usually invisible to those to whom the leader or controller
reports (board / shareholders). Even if
a board member has the opportunity to observe the interaction between a manager
and his employees, it is only possible to discern the manager’s style if one is
attuned to subtle cues in the interaction.
And likely these would only be visible to the board member if he also
has the characteristics of a leader.
Consider the controller – on top of every detail, making
every decision, disallowing conflicting discussion – what a horrendously
discouraging environment in which to work!
However, such a manager is able to answer every question posed to him by
bankers, shareholders, and board members.
He really looks on top of things – decisive, action oriented, aggressive,
and knowledgeable. Unfortunately for the
company, this is possible only because there are no answers other than his
answers; there is no activity other than activity directed by him. All information and decisions flow through
the controller.
A controller might be able to function effectively in a
small and less complex setting – a department, a single manufacturing plant, an
organization with only a few variables. A
controller can even function in a subset of a larger organization (as the
manager of one division or group of a multi-division company, for example), as
there are support systems and other functions inherently outside of his control
– in other words, the controller’s scope is limited and held in check by other
competing or controlling factions.
Alternatively, consider the leader – once he has established
proper objectives, guidelines, and incentives, once he ensures that proper
training (via his constant and effective communication) has resulted in proper
business decision-making skills, he allows decisions and authority to be
executed at the lowest points possible within the organization. This is valuable in any organization, but it
is imperative in more complex situations.
The leader understands that once he has established processes
and ground-rules, the organization will operate best if authority is driven to
the lowest point possible – without every action needing blessing or approval
from above. He will gain the respect of
the organization because he has shown respect in the capabilities of those
reporting to him. His actions result in
a more effective organization – not because he has better individual employees
(in any large organization the bell curve applies), but because he has created
a team.
A leader cannot answer every question because there are too
many actions being implemented every day for him to properly manage – and the
leader is self-confident enough to not be concerned by this and to not be
concerned that others see this. He
realizes that his organization will be far more effective – with satisfying
career opportunities for his employees – than it ever could be had he
implemented his role as a gatekeeper. Most
importantly, he knows that the results achieved will be far greater than if he
tried to direct and remain on top of every project, action, and decision.
How is this to be made visible to board members and
shareholders tasked with finding someone to lead their organization? Most focus solely on results – and it is
certainly possible that a controller can beat the numbers in one situation and
for a leader to miss the numbers in another.
It isn’t a question solely of numbers – it takes no effort or wisdom to
measure performance to budget. However, it
does take effort to understand the reasons behind performance – both good and
bad.
Results are important.
Resume is important. However, the
differentiator – the added insurance – is to find a leader. In all cases, the organization will perform
better under a leader than it will under a controller. It will do this not because of characteristics
easily seen by the board or shareholders, but for characteristics easily seen
and most important to the employees.
Certainly, focus on results and focus on resume. But to identify a leader, you must find out
the “how” and the “why”? This takes some
real effort. Unfortunately, it often
takes being a leader oneself or at least having seen and appreciated a leader
in action – usually from the position of having been led.
Find out how the manager communicates with employees,
including how he expects supervisors to interact with employees. Does he look for answers from the bottom
up? Is he only talking to a few, trusted
confidants, or is he open to dialogue with all?
Do the hourly workers know that they have power to get management to
move? If so, ask him to demonstrate how
he specifically puts this in action – not words, but structure and
accountability.
Understand his views on incentive systems. Is his personal incentive based on the same
system and formula that his team has? Is
it all for one and one for all – in other words, all get paid or none get paid? Or does he set up a plan where some get paid (him)
while others do not (them)?
What of objectives and focus? Does the manager keep the list small and
consistent? What is the list? Is it understandable and understood by the
entire organization? How does the
manager translate this into meaning for all of the complexities found in any
large enterprise?
Find out how the leader trains his subordinates and
employees. Does he view this as one of
his primary responsibilities? Can he
even describe this without referring to Human Resources or outside consultants?
Understand these and you will understand if you have a
leader. Focus only on results or resume,
and odds are you will likely end up with a controller – there are far more of
them, and they sound very impressive
