Management Theory

Today is a day of heavy reading for my management class. While the class doesn't meet until Thursday, this weekend is the only time I'll have for it, so I'm reading 40+ pages of theory, as well as 30+ pages of case history.

What's refreshing to read is that some of the assumptions about management that I have had are misconceptions. Chiefly, that all institutions are hierarchical, inherently patriarchal, and require being a hard-charging, assertive, bossy jerk. Maybe that comes from being an army brat, or an eighties child; in general that has not been my experience, but then I've always been fortunate enough to be picky about my work environment.

In the case study, the company being scrutinized is a law firm with roots in Philadelphia's Quaker community. The study attributes to this heritage a culture of consensus-based decision-making, collegiality, and thrift. It reminds me of a time, almost ten years ago, when I was dissatisfied with my work environment and changed jobs, ultimately arriving in a small shop where the technicians were collegial and shared knowledge. I would put in a vote for organizations founded on the internal sharing of knowledge.

In the general course reading, there is one chapter that basically says American management theories rarely integrate with the cultures of other nations, especially non-Western nations. The author ascribes to US management theory a focus on assertiveness, hierarchy, and a labor market, where essentially workers are contracting to provide their services. I've always had a quibble with that idea - where's the esprit d'corps? - though I've accepted it as the norm and can see, in hindsight, how it influenced some of my thoughts about my own employment in the past few years.

This is a very mechanical view of the world with no way of accounting for relationships. Perhaps I might continue working for someone even though I could make money working for someone else, based solely on the work relationship. Or, perhaps I might not opt to work for a company that pays more because I know their working conditions are not as nice. Granted, maturity and years of working in NYC have made me a bit jaded on the benefits of always working for the "best fit - I've discovered I will happily put up with circumstances I once imagined to be unbearable - but still, the principle remains - relationships and company culture matter.

I'm interested in today's study materials more for how it accounts for gender. It is generally accepted that women are not as assertive as men (not true, based on some women I've known). I think it's more apt to say that women are assertive in different ways; we compete differently. These different management styles, ascribed mostly to national or geographic location, can be described in gender terms, or more aptly, in terms of regular human diversity.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Leadership

I had an interesting object lesson in leadership today. I volunteer with a group that promotes kayaking on the Hudson river, and today I helped lead a public group across the river and down to Liberty State Park. The public, as we refer to them, are people who do not necessarily kayak regularly, and in a sense are our customers even though our services are free. We want to encourage the public to go out on the water and enjoy a natural resource, hoping this will encourage them to protect it.

Our leader was a guy I'll refer to as D. One of the first obstacles that D faced was that a completely different expedition was being assembled at the same time as ours. The other expedition was not for the public; D's was. Members of the public were showing up and not being told where to go, so it took a while to identify them. After that, the public had to be told which boats were theres, where to assemble, and how to get in the boat. Throw in a last minute re-organization of boats, and the setup process alone was already very confusing to the public.

Seeing how D was overwhelmed, I stepped forward to help out. I offered to get the public in to boats and arranged. D said OK, and I started talking about safety and basic paddling skills - on a long trip, proper technique is important. We got everyone out on boats and I got to know the people we were taking across the river.

As we proceeded out, I pointed to D and said he was our leader. Leading a public trip is a serious charge; while it is safe, there are potential safety issues, and the leader is, in a sense, responsible for other peoples' lives. There is river traffic to contend with, changing weather and river conditions, and the ability of inexperienced people to keep up.

D pointed to me and said, "follow Julie". I had no idea where we were going. I had no idea what direction the tide was flowing. I also don't know the riverfront of the Hudson on the Jersey side very well. I resented being put in a leadership position that I was unprepared for. That said, I did my best.

An overcast day on the Hudson river is not a good place for a closed-door conference to talk about leadership issues. You can't schedule a meeting and write up talking points. You' on the water. In this instance, we were also in front of the public, and open dissension between the expedition leaders can be disastrous. I've seen it happen. It lowers morale and leaves a sour taste in the mouths of everyone.

So, we pressed on. I got us across the river, after making a course correction advised by another volunteer. M was invaluable. He is more experienced and could see what was happening. While D stayed in the very end of our flotilla, M and I talked, coordinated our plans, and kept everyone moving. There was almost no ownership of the trip on D's part on the way down. We managed the regular river hazards - the tide, the weather, and water taxis crossing in front and behind us. It was a safe trip.

We did land successfully and got out for about twenty minutes. On the way back, suddenly D was in front. It was as if he could not wait to get home. He did do one thing that we appreciated - he took a very poor paddler out of a single boat and paired him with his son in a double boat. Other than that, though, he mostly raced ahead with two members of the public who did exceptionally well. The rest of us just tried to keep the public together.

What to do in a situation such as this? The dynamics were not specific to kayaking. We had a nominal leader who, when given additional leadership assistance, basically locked himself in a room and said for us to run things. There was no briefing or formal transfer of responsibility. It wasn't clear if M and I were supposed to be making decisions, as we did on the way down, or not, as was the case on the way up. there was no clear communication.

I myself tend to come from a 'respect the office' approach. The systems in place for managing anything - money, government, inexperienced kayakers - really only work if the role of an office is respected. Once that is gone, the affair can easily become a free-for-all. On the water, that can be disastrous.

I won't lead a mutiny, and would rather not be party to one, but this even tested me. I think I came out well in terms of task management. I was only thrown by being given a level of responsibility I was unprepared for (in real terms, i.e. not having charts or tide tables or even a destination, let alone psychological terms).

Blogged with the Flock Browser