The evaluation and promotion of managers is a subjective art. Sometimes getting promoted depends on having the right friends and relatives. At least, it helps when seeking promotions to have the right connections, provided you also have the ability to lead and get results. Some managers do, and some do not. Some rise from management's baseline-supervision-get on the fast track, climb steadily to the top, and bypass older and more experienced managers. How do they do it? There is no clear-cut answer to the question. More times than not, good guys win; but sometimes they fail. What we look at in this chapter are characteristics of successful managers, tactics some have used, and pitfalls that some managers identify.
GENERALIST VERSUS SPECIALIST
Organizations need professional managers with a flair for getting results, generating enthusiasm, and inspiring confidence.
They need innovative managers to shape the organization's future. Business leaders often ask whether this type of direction can best be provided by a generalist or a specialist. Can the broad outlook needed be acquired in a technical area such as accounting or computer science, or through a more general expertise in organizational theory, principles of management, history, and sociology?
Conclusion No. 1
Use a specialization to get a job (to get your foot in the door), but start soon thereafter to acquire a broad company outlook. Prepare yourself to speak, think, and act in terms of a broad company overview.
FRIENDS, MENTORS, SPONSORS
Everyone needs friends, mentors, and sponsors to speak for them and to use as a sounding board. Possibly one can rise in an organization on individual merit alone, but it is nicer and easier to have a helping hand reach out along the way.
In most organizations the politics of who gets what from whom (and for what) is important. Organizations are usually dominated by an "in" group that sets priorities, and those who succeed easily are the ones who achieve sponsorship from members of this group.
A sponsor-preferably from higher up in the organization should vouch for and defend you in higher company circles. In firms that promote strictly from within, sponsorship is an absolute requirement for getting ahead.
The word sponsor is defined as one who accepts responsibility for another. Sponsors of young managers speak for them; they recommend them for promotions and programs but do not ensure satisfactory results. Sponsors help new managers get a chance to show what they can do, but sponsors do not assume specific responsibility for how new managers perform.
Young employees often make the mistake of thinking that they do not need help from older, established members of the company. This is not necessarily overconfidence, but it shows that young employees are unaware of the importance of having sponsors. This is not to suggest that young employees should "butter up" to senior managers. However, it is practical and realistic, especially if you do not have connections in a firm, to find someone who will take an interest in your progress and learn enough about your ability to speak for you in higher places. It is questionable whether one's boss and one's sponsor should be the same person.
Some sponsors are called mentors. A mentor can be a sponsor, but a sponsor is not necessarily a mentor. A mentor gives advice and listens to grievances when the employee needs help. A mentor teaches, counsels, and helps an employee grow on the job. A mentor can also serve as a role model. Sponsors recommend a person; they nominate him or her for projects or committees.
In companies where the practice of mentoring is encouraged, meetings between neophytes and seasoned managers may be held regularly to review events and discuss plans. These meetings can occur monthly, over morning coffee, or at decision-making meetings with trainees invited as observers.
Conclusion No. 2
Those who aspire to climb the precarious ladder of success should cultivate friends a rung or two higher who will extend a helping hand when needed.
EVALUATIONS
Management evaluation takes many forms and is used to provide information about performance. It is difficult to evaluate employees objectively; favoritism is a problem. Much study has been given to performance reviews. Reviews of young middle managers are particularly important in order to find those who are having personnel problems and who show judgmental weaknesses of various types. If detected early, such flaws can possibly be corrected through counseling or additional training.
Companies that become bankrupt have often said that the real problem was managers who were unable to make good decisions or who made costly misjudgments. For example, one large corporation, recently in the news because of bankruptcy, referred to its senior management group as "reclusive and controversial" about marketing decisions. This management group apparently lost the confidence of middle management and employees down the line. Shipments were delayed and retail outlets closed. Company projects and programs faltered, and more alert personnel began to leave the firm.
A classic example of a costly management misjudgment is the Edsel automobile. It apparently was put on the market at the wrong time, and the mistake cost the Ford Motor Company millions of dollars. Most companies cannot survive such costly mistakes. Unfortunately, it is the stockholders and customers who pay for mismanagement-and the employees who lose their jobs.
The technique of having employees evaluate a manager is probably the poorest method. Most employees will not objectively complete even an unsigned checklist appraisal of their manager. They may do so privately, but not as part of a study that is likely to get back to the manager.
Some managers look for informal appraisal from good friends outside the company or from their spouses. The obvious problem here is that a spouse or best friend is rarely objective. Other managers turn to psychologists, but they, too, are at a disadvantage because they get only one side of the picture-the manager's. In a few instances, consulting psychologists have been brought into organizations. Through a series of observed situations, manager performance is evaluated either by a committee or by designated individuals. Training needs are identified and addressed, and then performance is again observed. Junior or middle managers trained in this way may be interviewed by senior managers other than those to whom they report. They may be given plan-making assignments that are reviewed and appraised by experienced managers.
MANAGEMENT FLOW
A relatively new way to judge management performance is by length of service at one level, that is, which employees are stuck on plateaus? Flow of personnel from one category to another as managers advance is desirable. Analysis of the rate of movement, or flow, identifies managers with good potential as well as those who are less likely to advance. For example, management trainees at the junior or middle level who do not move out of the initially assigned category within a reasonable time will probably be shelved or dismissed. Management recruits should make sure they understand how they will be evaluated. What criteria will be used, by whom, and how?
Some people have unrealistic expectations about how far they can move up in an organization or how fast. It takes years for the majority of junior managers to move even to middle management. Speedy promotions for the majority of managers is unrealistic.
One management flow analysis of 400 managers showed that 312 stayed in the same category throughout their years of work, 13 were demoted from middle to junior management, 33 left, and 42 were promoted-22 from junior management to middle, and 20 from middle to top.
Computer Appraisal
If a company uses a computer to calculate management flow, other factors can be introduced: age, sex, ethnicity, length of service, time on present job, education, or percent of merit increase. Managers could also be grouped by function-accounting, marketing, sales-and by level, department size, and size of budget. A cross analysis of this type, made possible by computer capabilities, creates an entirely new base for management appraisal. Other, less specific variables-such as money earned for the corporation by a particular function or strategies developed-could read like a statement of assets on a company's balance sheet. Indeed, here is a human resources or leadership balance sheet, a new device for monitoring and managing human resources systems.
Conclusion No. 3
Companies can create a computer database for management appraisals by calculating flow or movement from one level to another in combination with factors such as age, length of service, education and percent of merit increase, department size and size of budget.
CONCLUSION
A variety of personality and performance factors are considered when appraising managers for promotion. Executives are carefully developed as a precious company resource, and companies constantly watch junior and middle-management levels for new talent. Many standard factors influence the success of managers, but there are always exceptions. Some mavericks disregard the suggestions in this chapter and proceed in their own way, even though too much nonconformity is not recommended for those coming up in the ranks.
If the expectations described in this chapter are unacceptable to you, then you have two alternatives: find an organization with a more compatible philosophy, or change your aspirations and decide to stay put. Perhaps the organization is too big or too small for you. Smaller companies provide a wide range of opportunities and freedom of action. Working for a family-owned business unless it is your own-may, however, be restrictive. Before you decide you cannot tolerate the appraisal patterns of large corporations, be sure your expectations are realistic.
