MANAGEMENT
PHILOSOPHY
While leadership is about doing the right
thing, management is about doing things right. The issue that comes readily to
mind is how do you inspire, motive, and empower the people whom you have been
charged to lead to “do things right” to ensure that they “do the right thing”
to achieve the common good. The degree to which this can be achieved is
determined to a large extent by the degree of congruence of alignment between
the leadership goal of “doing the right thing” and management goal of “doing
things right” on a day-to-day basis.
Having described my leadership philosophy, which,
in general, drives the strategic agenda, it is important now to explain my
management philosophy, which is derived from my fundamental make-up as a strategic
thinker who is goal-oriented, detail-oriented, results-driven, and
entrepreneurial. Concomitantly, I believe that people feel a greater sense of self-worth
when they set goals for themselves and are able to achieve them. I also believe
that people want to have a larger role in shaping their own destiny.
Consequently, these beliefs have influenced my management philosophy, which can
best be described entrepreneurial; in that I promote the taking of ownership
interests in the formulation of plans, policies, goals, objectives and or
services which are being undertaken by the affected employee by encouraging
creativity and individualism, and “outside the box “ thinking.
As a direct consequence of this undergirding management
philosophy, I subscribe to the notion that a major part of leadership is
assigning the proper level of responsibility, authority, and accountability to
the right people at the appropriate level for the delegated responsibilities. By
articulating a clearly defined alignment of vision, mission, goals, and
objectives, directly with the day-to-day activities of each employee via the
organizational hierarchy, the goal of assigning responsibility, authority, and
accountability to promote results-oriented, goal-driven, entrepreneurial
action, is made easier to achieve. It
also facilitates the empowerment of unit heads/middle managers to assume
ownership of their portion of the enterprise, and to lead/manage with an
entrepreneurial mind-set, and to make decisions using this mind-set as their
undergirding philosophy. Area heads/Vice Presidents and or other business units
leaders must not allow their subordinates to avoid accountability for their
responsibilities by becoming enmeshed in “unnecessary over analysis”, “indecisiveness”,
and or “punting” the decision-making to their supervisors, for issues/problems
that are directly within their control to resolve. Thereby, forcing the area
heads into performing every aspect of the task and or making decisions that are
directly within the purview of the middle manager - which relieves said middle
manager of his/her responsibility. This phenomenon, which I define as “upward
delegation”, is a classic example of middle managers’ attempt to avoid
accountability. If this phenomenon, which is much too prevalent in many
institutions, is allowed to fester, the net result is that decision-making is
pushed upwards to the highest levels of the institution instead of the most
efficient level, thereby stymieing the efficiency and effectiveness of the
enterprise. Unit heads/middle managers must be held accountable for their
responsibilities by empowering them to make decisions at the most appropriate
level.
This management philosophy is guided by two
simple doctrines: (1) Best Interest Test, and (2) Proud Test.
Best Interest Test:
In the best interest test the following
question must be answered in the affirmative: Is the plan, policy, goal and/or
objective being pursued in the best interest of the college or university? That
is: Does it advance the mission, vision, goal and objective of the college or
university? Inherent in this doctrine, is the prerequisite that there is a
clearly defined alignment of the vision, mission, goals and objectives, to the
day-to-day responsibilities of the employees to assign authority and
accountability, to ensure that each employee understands the role(s) he/she
plays in helping the organization to fulfill its vision and mission. This
doctrine also assumes that there is a clear understanding that people bring
with them their own special interest, needs and idiosyncrasies, which obviously
would color their perception. The true test occurs when personal self-interest
conflicts with the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the college or
university. The key to success, therefore, is the degree of congruence that can
be achieved between the best interest of the college or university and the
special interest of the individual(s) – be they vice presidents, deans, and or
other unit heads. Astute leaders understand this agency problem and work
diligently to narrow the incongruence gap by providing the necessary incentives
to their subordinates to align their career aspirations with advancing the
mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the entity the lead/manage.
Proud Test
In the proud test, the questioned to be
answered is: Would you be proud of the outcome of the program, project, and or
assignment for which you are responsible? The proud test is important in that
it goes to the heart of what motivate employees and embraces the philosophy
that one’s work product is reflective of whom he/she is as an individual –
personally and professional; and of the values that are important to them;
values which to a large extent would determine the quality of the effort that
would be pursued in undertaking the assignment. For example: someone with a
strong moral compass who believes that honesty, integrity, and dealing fairly
with others, would pursue a different approach to undertaking their assigned
responsibility than a person who lacks such a moral compass. Such persons would
have different motivators: the desire to do the “right thing” and achieve the
best possible outcome; while persons with a different moral compass would
probably be motivated by money to “just get the job done”, regardless of the
quality of the outcome of the assignment, and collect a pay check. The outcome
would be that the passion, commitment, and desire to produce the best possible
product would not be present in the person with a compromised moral compass.
While the proud test would appear to be
subjective, it is not. First, it presupposes that the incumbent possesses the
requisite tools, skills, and competencies to undertake the assignment, such
that the expectation for achieving the desired outcome is not unrealistic.
Second, it relies on the reasonableness standard: that reasonable people when
evaluating the work product using standard objective criteria would more likely
than not come to the same conclusion – that is, the work product is of
significant quality such that a reasonable person would be proud of the outcome;
and would be proud to be the person responsible for its outcome. Applying these
two criteria to evaluate the proud test removes the subjectivity.
