"For the groups I have been managing so far, we have usually decided upon a minimum level of skills for each task within the project or department. If the person is able to develop the skills in a reasonable amount of time to an adequate level to complete the specific tasks then everything is "ok". The person stays and the manager can also benefit from this persons strengths. If a person is not able to develop skills in a reasonable amount of time then effort is sometimes made to find a better place in the organization for this individual.
The procedure could be slightly different between different managers and project leaders on how they handle these kinds of issues. However low performance is also rewarded with low salaries and the opposite for good performances.How do balance task orientation with relationship orientation?"
My thoughts:
I find your take and personal experience interesting. You came across in your comments as relationship oriented to me because most tasks oriented managers may not even have the time or patience to help some one retrain or find them alternative roles within the company. What do you do when there are no alternative roles within your organisation for the person's strengths? I think unless the job for which the person was recruited for has fundamentally changed, then usually this is a case of poor recruitment.
In my experience and within that my circle of friends, I find that most managers at their early introduction into management are very much task oriented; working hard to a make a mark. A few keep this moment into later careers and remain taskmasters. Majority, however, hit a brick wall of rebellious employees and soon learn that the best way to get best performance is through the application of some of the relationship oriented approaches. However, they may swing too far down this side failing to provide structure and, failing to implement any of the task-related activities. Eventually, as they mature professionally, they realise that they need to combine both sets of orientations to be successful. When we learn to balance our need for achievement/task completion with empathy and care for our team members, then I think we have hit the holy grail of Leadership. I think getting the job done is the priority but your people need to feel satisfied when the job is done.
I work hard to identify the strengths, weaknesses and the attitudes of my team as it helps me get the best out of everyone. I find that performance/strengths are not scientifically measured (I am not saying they should be as some roles do not lend themselves to this form of measurement) and are usually other peoples' opinion. I also find that people's attitude and personality traits affect their performance significantly. As an example, it is often said that someone is poor at presentation when the actual problem is lack of confidence and self belief. I had a team member who seemed to have moments of excellence but usually a mediocre performance. Without any training, his performance shot up when he received some confidence coaching. I always advise managers to look into the person (attitude, values, beliefs) when assessing strengths and weaknesses
No comments:
Post a Comment