Some food for thought for managers, whether in the home, work, school, church, or anywhere. A long time ago, someone leading our bible study asked what marked a good manager. This is the elaboration of the answer I gave.
Years ago, I was hired into this unique group in a major corporation. For five years, I loved my job and looked forward to going each day. In the final two years, however, I came to really detest it. It became a serious source of stress rather than joy for me. Can you guess why that is? Sure, some people I was close to left, and, yes, I was pregnant at the end, but what I learned from it all was just how crucial it is to have good managers.
I believe my original manager did the following right:
1) He got to
know our strengths and weaknesses well. He assigned projects for us based on our strengths, and gave us side projects to help our areas of weaknesses. No two people in the group had the same functions and assignments--we were given ways to excel, and also to improve, based on our unique gifts.
2) He
kept us accountable in a firm but understanding way. There was
no feeling of being forced, just coached and motivated. He was factual about my mistakes, rather than assuming and generalizing. I didn't feel put down; he
challenged me fairly to strive for better, and I did.
3) We were not just resources to him; we had
strong relationships, which led to comfortable communication. We were people who had so much going on even outside of work. He was also open about his own life and that made him even more
approachable.
4) He
protected us from the unnecessary mandates of those above him who were misinformed AND he
worked to inform and educate them (and us). He wasn't just a messenger.
5) We were built up and
equipped within, both individually and as a team, so that we could
easily focus outward. In that time, the successes of our group came to be known across the divisions and around the world in our company--this is not an easy feat with a Fortune 500 company.
6) (edited in) He also had some of us mentor others or new people in the group to develop our own leadership skills.
Unfortunately, #5 led to our demise, because there was a political power struggle to take over our group. The suits removed my manager and director, nothing short of a coup. They thought the talent was at our level and got rid of the middleman. These new guys just had no knowledge of how our group functioned and, worse, did not know how to manage people with more knowledge than them. We lost our motivation, and we fell apart. After I left, they canned the group. It was such a long and hard fall. I tried to point out the red flags, but the new management felt they could just mold us into whatever they wanted us to be, for their personal gain or ideals. You can't use your experience or assumptions as your guide--you sometimes have to just
listen. I continued to perform well on the surface, but I felt like my arm was being twisted and at some point it would have to stop.
Maybe the writing was on the wall for our group anyway.
If you're a parent, think about how shepherding means that a rod and staff (correction) comforts. Grudging obedience is not the end goal. If we abuse our power and use negative reinforcement constantly, we might end up with a child like me who behaved well externally and was completely messed up inside (and worse, unaware of it). If you're a corporate manager, think about how your subordinates look to you for guidance and development, and how ruling with an iron fist may backfire. If you're a leader or teacher, again, think about what will truly motivate and drive those in your group. Heavy-handed enforcement of commitment is not the same as accountability, as I've mentioned before. The former takes out the love, grace, and understanding of the latter. It introduces a coldness and formality that is often unnecessary. And managers must be held accountable, too.
One more story. Another manager, Ken, lost his entire group and then was let go. All his people actually quit. He told me that his disappointment was that not one worker talked to him so that he could prevent what happened. If an entire group is underperforming or diminishing, should we say that the individuals are all flaking or noncommittal? Maybe. Or could it be that they are being poorly managed? I would agree with Ken, that someone should have told him. It probably seemed easier to leave. Yet I also think that he should have sought out answers--or better yet, built relationships with them such that they could voice concerns. Our pastor mentioned this to Manny once--I think it applies to so much of life. I tell you this because I also appreciate the difficult position that managers and leaders are in, and that they are human, too.
We are training Naomi to communicate with us openly, without fear (but without backtalking), and promise her we will do our best to understand, while still being in charge. She is also a unique individual, and if her strengths/weaknesses aren't channeled carefully, it could lead to disillusionment or her giving up on our relationship altogether.
Going back to the points above about my original manager, I think when you start mandating that everyone do the same thing without consideration for their unique capabilities, what are you communicating? Is that community or communism? Just like a job, you have to be the right fit. Just like the bible says, different parts of the body work differently for a reason. Also, is true commitment merely external behavior? Why does the bible say God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9) or that we must show mercy cheerfully (Rom 12:8)? Because God desires our hearts to be in it, to do it with the joy He's granted us, to love without hypocrisy (Rom 12:9). Like Manny told me, we are committed to each other in marriage, and that means in true and unconditional love, and not that we grudgingly stay together and tolerate each other because we have to. He is my manager in many ways, and has done it well. God manages us, and does it perfectly.
