A few years ago, Ichak Adizes wrote “How to Solve the (Mis)management
Crisis” and “Corporate Lifecycles”, two books with many excellent concepts
about what made management teams effective as well as what skills were needed
at different periods of time during a company’s lifespan.
Adizes identified that a key success factor for an
organization was to ensure that the management team covered off four critical
roles. These were the roles of Producer, Administrator, Idea Person and
Integrator.
Over the years, while working with many management teams in
different sized companies in a variety of industries, we’ve found that seldom
if ever does the top executive have all of these traits. The best managers are
usually strong in only one or two of these roles and have minor competency in
the third or fourth.
For the business to really be successful, it’s necessary to
have other managers who can fill the voids when the top executive can’t fulfill
all the roles.
A typical example is the case where the General Manager
(often the owner/founder) is the kind of person that gets things done (The
Producer). He pushes production through the plant, he beats the bushes for
sales when the order book is low and he ensures that the equipment is kept in
excellent condition. That same person may have great ideas about new products
or new marketing initiatives. However, the pressure that he puts on the
organization drives people crazy and his lack of interest as to what capital
spending is doing to cash flow can create problems.
If this type of manager doesn’t have someone controlling the
cash, as well as putting controls on spending, the organization can get into
big trouble. Similarly, if there isn’t another person who’s able to smooth
relations between departments and individuals, the company can fly apart.
Filling the Vacancy or Filling the Void?
Often, when a vacancy occurs, efforts are made to find a
replacement with the same skill set as the person who has just left. However,
when considering skill set, the emphasis is on knowledge and experience.
Sometimes an organization recruits someone who seems to have
technical skills and experience far better than the departing individual.
Everyone takes praise for finding such a qualified candidate for the job.
Unfortunately, at times, after a short interval, it becomes
apparent that things aren’t working well. Perhaps there are more internal
confrontations than ever, or maybe the bank is asking to have a meeting because
the company’s cash flow is in dire straits.
The new recruit may seem to be doing the job well. He or she
has done a great job of increasing sales and is great at customer service,
always pushing production to get jobs out on time. The general manager is
pleased since duties are carried out in the same way as he had always done.
The bottom line is that the organization filled the vacancy
– but did not address the void that the departing employee left. The
departing employee had always been involved in settling disputes and calming
the waters when sales and manufacturing clashed. He or she was perceived as the
go-to person when someone got really ticked off with the way they were treated.
The General Manager saw them as being unimaginative, always arguing against
spending or new ideas. Others saw them as being the only one with sanity.
When filling a vacancy, attention needs to be paid to both
the hard competencies, which most people focus on, and the role(s) that the new
recruit needs to fulfill to round out the management team. Hiring a person in
your own image may be the worst selection you can make.
Fred Pamenter is managing partner of PPB&D Consulting
Limited, a Toronto based Human Resource firm.
T: 416-620-5980E:
ppbdconsulting@aol.com
