Identifying the right management job for you.

In the business world, it's important to know exactly what you're getting into when accepting a management position. Being forced to surrender a responsibility represents a stigma that no one wants to carry, especially in management. Considering this fact, trying to avoid a difficult situation ranks high among managers' worries when offered a leadership position.

Let's take a close look at management responsibilities. Managers focus on two main concerns - the tasks at hand and the relationship with the people doing them. Not mutually exclusive, these two tendencies indicate the natural inclination of leaders to be involved with people or with the goals at hand.

Management styles

Mixing the intensity of managers' dedication to these two concerns, four different management styles emerge. A list of possible combinations of managers' concerns includes low concern with task/low concern with relationship, high concern with task/low concern with relationship, low concern with task/high concern with relationship, and high concern with task/high concern with relationship.

Based on these natural groupings of priorities, four management styles can be defined.

* Delegators - low concern with task/low concern with relationships. These managers have minimum concern for tasks and relationships. They believe in the team's ability to solve problems and therefore provide only broad directions and objectives. This leaves the team members leeway to decide how to accomplish the goals.

* Motivators - low concern with task/high concern with relationships. In this style of management, managers spend much time building relationships with and among team members. To them, the human side of the organization takes precedence over the goals of the group. They usually present broad goals and work the human element consistently, believing that personal drive will lead to the execution of the task.

* Directors - high concern with task/high concern with relationships. These managers typify MacGregor's "Theory X" leadership style. They believe that the team does not have the skill or the motivation to do the task. Consequently, they direct the activity in detail and control how people act or even think.

* Coachers - high concern with task/low concern with relationships. These leaders believe that employees have the motivation but lack the skills to perform the job. They constantly teach employees how to do the job without considering the intricacies of human relations.

Managers generally display a blend of these styles, but many will use only the most comfortable style. Their preferred natural style harmonizes with values and attitudes about tasks and relationships. (By the way, if you are not sure, many questionnaires have been developed to evaluate your management style.)

Figure 1 shows the four areas of the task vs. relationship management styles.

Team styles

The other side of the coin deals with the kind of teams managers will lead. From this viewpoint, two main factors affect how a team performs: how well-skilled a team is and what degree of motivation the team members display to accomplish the goal. Mixing these two factors, we can find teams with low skills but high motivation, low skills and low motivation, high skills but low motivation, and the aggressive teams - those high in skill and in motivation. Using these combinations, the teams can be classified as follows:

* Achievers - high skills/high motivation. These teams are ready to succeed at work. They know what to do and have the motivation to do it.

* Diligents - low skills/high motivation. The members of these teams want to do excellent work but lack the skills to deliver what is necessary.

* Incompetents - low skills/low motivation. They don't know how to do the job and don't want to do the job. These team members work for reasons other than accomplishing a goal.

* Slackers - high skills/low motivation. A typical team that knows what to do but avoids taking the necessary actions.

Figure 2 is a representation of the four teams, showing the arrangement of motivation vs. skills on the graph.

Successful matches

The success of the management-team combination will depend on the match of the manager with the team. If the management style complements the needs of the team, the results will be an effective combination that maximizes productivity.

The Delegator will work well with the Achievers. For example, a highly technical and creative group will benefit from this match. Motivators will do best in groups of Slackers because what the manager does best is what the team needs most. The Director is unsurpassable in working with the Incompetents. An Army drill sergeant typifies this example by telling the recruits what to do, how to act, and what to think. Coachers, with their teaching abilities, will advance with the Diligents. On the other hand, a mismatch will have devastating consequences. Imagine a Delegator working with Incompetents. In that case, nothing will be accomplished.

Blending the two previous figures produces a match of teams with management styles that will flourish [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. If the management style and team classification match - great! However, the chances of having a perfect match are not likely. Usually, to be effective, changes will be required.

Two potential changes are obvious: as manager, you change your management style to fit the team or the team changes to fit the management style. One problem with changes in team behavior is that team changes usually require time, training, and long-term commitment. If management chooses this avenue, productivity will suffer immediately This is not good for a new manager. It leaves changes to management style as the most efficient corrections the easiest to orchestrate.

Certain management styles will work best with certain teams. Managers must realize that, if there is not a natural match, they will have to adopt an unnatural style suitable to the group's behavior. This situation forces them to play roles that are not their natural inclination, adding more stress to the management function. This factor should be considered and a self-review of the manager's style, as well as the kind of team the manager will lead, must be done before entering a no-win situation. If you force the analysis you will be better prepared, when offered a leadership position, to answer the question: "Is this management job for me?"

For further reading

Allender, Hans D., "Self-Directed Work Teams: How Far Is Too Far?" Industrial Management, September-October 1993.

Allender, Hans D., "Reengineering Employee Performance Appraisals the TQM Way," Industrial Management, November/December 1995.

Allender, Hans D., "Awakening the Power of the Objectives Matrix," Industrial Management, November-December 1997.

Riggs, L. James, and Glenn H. Felix, Productivity by Objectives, Prentice-Hall, 1983.

Sink, Scott, and Thomas C. Tuttle, Planning and Measurement in Your Organization of the Future, Engineering and Management Press, 1989.

Hans D. Allender, Ph.D., P.E., is president of the ProducBox Institute, a Millersville, Maryland-based firm that provides training and management consulting services. A senior member of IIE, he specializes in reengineering, productivity, and quality improvements. A lover of the outdoors, Hans walks and runs regularly, and has participated in several foot races, including the New York Marathon. He is also an active member of Toastmasters International.

Johannes Allender is a senior at the University of Maryland, where he majors in industrial/organizational psychology. With an interest in finance and entrepreneurship, he plans to pursue a master's in business administration. He also works as a communication officer at the ProducBox Institute. Johannes' personal interests include running, music, dancing, and traveling.