Recently I was having a discussion with a client, the Chief Executive Officer of his organization, about the role he played in his organization.
My client stated that he was the best appraiser that the organization had, and that he knew more than anyone else about appraising.
The Vice President of the organization had also come up through the appraiser ranks. He, too, saw himself as one of the leading sources of knowledge in the area.
The difference between the two was that the CEO was no longer an appraiser, even though he occasionally slipped back into that mode. He was a manager, and had carried out that role for many years. The Vice President, on the other hand, was still an appraiser, and had never made the transition to being a manager—though his title indicated that he was a high level manager. He still got involved with the minutiae of his area of expertise.
The above example is not unique, and actually occurs quite frequently. Those who carry a management-type title often do not break away from being an operator to fully embrace their new roles as managers.
I have written before about the big jump from “employee” status to low-level “manager” status. Those who make the switch have to move away from their old way of doing things, and often break away from their former social environment.
However, simply changing behavioral patterns and making new friends does not mean that someone has taken on the mantle of management. Many individuals don’t recognize that management requires certain skills and actions. They are able to run their businesses, often successfully, for a lengthy period of time, working as an operator while carrying the title of manager.
These individuals instinctively know when more sales are needed. They know how to rearrange schedules in a way that delivery commitments are met. They take calculated risks when disciplining individuals or taking short-cuts in safety matters. They know where to locate raw materials when the market is in short supply. Sometimes they know the business so well that they can step in and do any job in the building at a time of crisis. They are good operators, but not necessarily good managers.
What does the manager do differently?
He or she may know the business very well, and may know and be able to perform many—if not most—of the jobs in the company. However, managers seldom find themselves getting directly involved in the day-to-day operating of the business.
Managers make sure that the people that work for them are capable of doing the jobs they are given. They ensure that their subordinates get the development and training necessary to perform at a satisfactory level. By training employees well, the manager does not have to step in and do their jobs when a crisis arises.
By not operating the business, the manager is able to plan for the continued future of the business.
Sometimes such a person gets too far removed from the business and thus loses credibility with her staff. However, by developing measuring techniques, good managers are able to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the business. They are then able to develop strategies to overcome the weaknesses and take advantage of the strengths.
The operator frequently does not have, or want to have, a bunch of measurement devices in place. To the operator’s mind, he knows what is going on in the business and can react quicker than the person that depends on figures. The problem with this approach is that sometimes the obvious problem is not the root cause of the business’s distress, and the operator is too close to the action to distinguish the cause from the symptom.
If I were to own a company, I would love to have it run by good operators. They can make a lot of quick money for the company and themselves. However, I would not want to hold a company as a long-term investment without a sound manager in place.
So which one are you—operator or manager?