The Core Skill Set

For
Those Tasked to Lead
“They Said It Couldn’t Be
Done Change”

Paul Richardson
Henry Mintzberg states in his Harvard Business Review article, The Manager’s
Job: Folklore and Fact, “Finally, a word about the training of managers. Our
management schools have done an admirable job of training the organization’s
specialists—management scientists, marketing researchers, accountants, and
organizational development specialists. But for the most part they have not
trained managers.

Management schools will begin the serious training of managers when skill
training takes a serious place next to cognitive learning. Cognitive learning is
detached and informational, like reading a book or listening to a lecture. No
doubt much important cognitive material must be assimilated by the manager-to-
be. But cognitive learning no more makes a manager than it does a swimmer.
The latter will drown the first time he jumps into the water if his coach never
takes him out of the lecture hall, gets him wet, and gives him feedback on his
performance.

In other words, we are taught a skill through practice plus feedback, whether in a
real or simulated situation. Our management schools need to identify the skills
managers use, select students who show potential in these skills, put the students
into situations where these skills can be practiced, and then give them systematic
feedback on their performance.

My description of managerial work suggests a number of important managerial

skills-developing peer relationships, carrying out negotiations, motivating
subordinates, resolving conflicts, establishing information networks and
subsequently disseminating information, making decisions in conditions of
extreme ambiguity, and allocating resources. Above all, the manager needs to
be introspective about his work so that he may continue to learn on the job.”

This powerful statement regarding why so many managers can’t manage was
reinforced in his recent book, Managers Not MBAs. As someone who has long
and successful experience as a manager, especially a change leader, I can say
that I agree completely with what he is saying. My management training prior
to becoming a manager was limited to that learned at the dinner table from my
father who was a plant manager in Michigan. However, except for a four month
training stint as a foreman of a paced production line at AC Spark Plug Div of
GMC my first job after earning my BSEE, my first management job was at
Hewlett Packard. That was fortunate because David Packard had made a strong
commitment to providing a robust set of training experiences for us. The HP
classes were taught by managers. Teaching it makes you learn it well. This
included a foundation set of classes that progressed to managing managers and
beyond. They also provided exposure to lots of outside resources including that
given by industry giants like Tom Peters and William Oncken and also exposure
to hundreds of hours of case studies taught by Harvard, Stanford and Yale
business school professors.
This convinced me that managers learn to manage in two ways. First, cognitive
skills training and secondly, on the job from coaches or role models. My
concern as I look at wide swathes of the American landscape I see time and
again managers that make me exclaim, “They couldn’t manage their way out of
a paper sack.” Or, “He would have to be really creative and work extra hard to
be doing a worse job of managing.”

It doesn’t seem to matter what “industry” you are talking about, the examples
are far too plentiful of manager’s of all levels who are doing far more harm than
good. For example in education, the predominant style is one where there is
little concern for results [other than through talk that doesn’t stimulate the walk]
and high concern for not upsetting the staff. Yet the stress is high because
people are walking on eggshells afraid to say anything substantive because it
might violate the political correctness [truth suppression] regime so tightly
practiced. While many good people know that the performance is unacceptable
they are mired in a situation where they feel trapped like a rut robot.

Looking at healthcare, you get the same reading only with a different flavor. In
healthcare I have found much more of the hundred year old autocratic style that
was developed by Frederick Taylor to use in the auto factories early in the
twentieth century. While this management style has been discredited by decade
after decade of scientific study it still occurs all too often. In the case of the
healthcare settings it results in low morale, high turnover, high training cost to
integrate new hires, poorer care for the patients and much higher costs. Other
than that it is working pretty well. In the other management venues you tend to
get more of a mix but not much difference in overall management competence.

Here is the point. People don’t learn to manage in college, including

management majors. When you come out of school no matter your major, if you
don’t come into an organization that takes its management competence
seriously, you are in a terrible situation. You have no positive role models to
learn from, and you are missing much of the cognitive knowledge you need. So
the question is how to overcome that problem?

Organizations need to employ an ASSESS, TRAIN, COACH model. That is

organization by organization [carve out manageable chunks, division,
department, etc] you work with the management team. First, an assessment is
done to determine the baseline management skill present. This would include
several written assessment and an interview with the lead trainer. Next,
everyone would be given the training from the common denominator starting
point of the group being trained. An ideal group size is 10. That is small enough
to reduce the threat of being intellectually honest and admitting your
shortcomings [a vital requirement]. It is good for team building and working on
a coordinated set of vision, mission and goal statements. The training would be
broken into 3 day training stints spaced at about two week intervals. After the
first training and throughout the process the trainer would coach each participant
individually to “nudge” them to use the newly learned skills on the job. Without
this step you fall into the biggest trap perhaps in existence. That is, they lied to
you when they said “Knowledge is Power.” It isn’t. “Applied Knowledge is
Power.” You can read all of the books, attend all of the classes and if you never
implement any of the knowledge it does no one any good. However, without the
nudge of the coach you won’t get any consistent application of the new skills
which atrophy in peoples’ memories over time.

The following pages are a list of management skills/knowledge that I found in

my experience to be required to become a top notch change leader. I was able to
lead my teams to multiple “they said it couldn’t be done” changes during my
time in high tech management. Rosabeth Kanter included the participative
management piece of a huge initiative my HP team undertook in her book The
Change Masters.

This Assess, Train, Coach process is a huge opportunity to lower costs, improve
performance, improve morale and job satisfaction and provides the basis to
actually have fun on the job. I don’t see too many groups having fun at work
because they are really productive and proud of it.
 PWR Associates
Skill/Knowledge Requirements for Change Leaders

Skills/Knowledge

Foundational Management and Motivation Theory and Research

• Organizational problems are people based
• Change: 4 levels; Knowledge, Attitudes, Individual Behavior, Group Behavior
• Leadership definition
• Leadership Process: Plan, Organize, Lead, Control
• Three types of leadership skill: Technical skill, Human Skill, Conceptual skill,
GRID
• Effective Human Skills---Understanding past behavior, predicting future behavior,
directing, changing and controlling behavior
• Motivation and Behavior---behavior is goal oriented, motivation is the “will to
do”; motive strength. Strongest motive leads to activity
• Need satisfaction, blocking, cognitive dissonance, frustration (imaginary and real
barriers; rational coping (alternate goal setting), irrational behavior
(aggression/hostility, rationalization, regression, fixation, and resignation).
(Motives recur (hunger).
• Expectation levels—Subordinates will perform to their manager’s expectations:
High expectations result in high performance, Low expectations result in low
performance.
• Achievement-motivated people; high need for achievement and seek situations in
which they get concrete feedback on how well they are doing. More concerned
with personal achievement than rewards. Rewards aren’t rejected. For example
money is valued as a gauge of their performance.
• Theory X and theory Y—McGregor
• Immaturity-maturity continuum
• Leadership responsible to provide a work climate in which everyone has a chance
to grow and mature as individuals, as members of a group by satisfying their own
needs, while working for the success of the organization.
• Herzberg—motivation and hygiene factors
• Job enrichment

Situational Leadership—Hersey and Blanchard

• Leadership Style Grid
• Machiavelli—Personal Power and Position Power
• Coach Example
• Situational Leadership Model
• Maturity
• Change Process
Implementation of Performance Standards
• Performance needs a yardstick to measure merit.
• A pass/fail or point (goal only) system doesn’t encourage people to subscribe to
“reaching goals.”
• Goals are the other end of the yardstick. Thus merit is measured as the progress
made toward reaching the goal above and beyond the performance specified in
the performance standard and merit is positive if progress is made even if the
goal isn’t met.
• Performance standards are not set on attributes but on measurable results of the
person for whom the standards are written. For example, “Performance is
acceptable when: the learning assessment scores required to meet the Principal’s
AYPs are met overall and by sub category.” A performance standard is not, for
example, “PAW: 80% of the teachers working in the building are happy with the
principal.”
• Performance standards should include all areas the supervisor might want to
criticize and all of the areas the employee might want credit for doing (more
education, community involvement, etc.)
• Supervisors must not criticize performance for which no standard exists until a
new standard negotiated with the employee is in place. And this only allows
supervisor to criticize performance in the new area in the future. This is
equivalent to the “no ex post facto” law requirement in the U.S. constitution.
• The employee is responsible to track performance to standards on a real time
basis. Periodic meetings between supervisor and employee are set to track
performance throughout the evaluation period. It is in the interest of both parties
to take corrective action as soon as an “adverse trend” is recognized.
• Because performance to the standards is tracked all through the year, the
performance review has no surprises and can concentrate on what are the next
steps for the following review period after documenting the current past period.

Managing Management Time

• Conflict between leadership and vocational activities
• Tendency to retreat to the familiar
• When the amateur is confronted with additional responsibility he reacts by
working longer and harder at what he does best and loves to do most; the pro
responds by moving his managerial fulcrum over.
• Leadership is either—getting things done through others, or one damn thing after
another
• Three types of managerial time; boss imposed, system imposed and self imposed.
• Molecule of Leadership
• Three molecule roles: Leadership (them), Teamwork (peers), Followership (boss)
• The amateur believes that the organization owes him the active support of his
superior, peers and subordinates; the pro takes nothing for granted, so works
 tirelessly at getting and holding their active support and failing that, makes a
career decision.
• The Pareto Principle—80/20 Rule
• Rules of the road—between your and boss’ plan, boss has right of way
• The boss may not always be right but is always the judge
• The priority of the boss’ satisfaction (sell to the boss).
• Managing Time—Getting control of the timing and content of what you do.
• Degrees of leadership freedom (insurance for boss): Act on own with routine
reporting, act but advise at once, recommend and then take action resulting from
boss dialogue, ask what to do, wait until told.
• Leverage: employee time, supervisory time, executive time.
• Managing monkeys

Effective Communications
• Psychological Games
• Social styles
• Backup styles
• Opposing strengths and weaknesses
• Versatility
• Diagnosing problem interfaces

Data Gathering and Analysis

• Lifeblood of Closed Loop Management, the only way to improve
• Pareto Analysis (vital for continuous improvement efforts)
• Pair wise Comparison Techniques
• Effective data analysis, what do the data tell us?

Copyright  PWR Management Training 2005

Paul Richardson
719-598-2100