Managers XXII - Why Do People Apply for Management Positions

One of the common reasons why there are so many bad managers out there is that in most companies the only way to earn a higher wage beyond a certain level is to move into management. If you've read any of the earlier posts in this series, you know that I believe that being a manager requires a skill set that may be related to, but is generally separate from, the jobs that are being managed.

For example, Mary works for Widgets International as an apprentice widget assembler. After a year she moves up to journeyman widget assembler. Mary is one of the best widget assemblers in her section. She is fast and accurate and hardly ever has a widget returned for re-work. Every year she receives an increase in pay based on her annual review, but after a few years she reaches the wage cap for her position. She transfers over to widget design, which has a higher pay scale than widget assembler, but after a few years she reaches the wage cap again. What can Mary do to earn a higher wage? Well, there's a team supervisor position open. Mary, on the strength of her excellent record of assembling and designing widgets, is hired for the position. Good for Mary! She's now on the management track! But chances are Mary, within a year, will be viewed by either her subordinates or her superiors, as a bad manager. How could this be? She was the best at all aspects of her job. But supervising or managing other people requires completely different skills than doing the job itself.

New managers who have no aptitude for, or have received no training in, management tend to fail in one of several ways:

Many non-managers view their own managers simply has higher-paid versions of themselves who get to boss people around, or perhaps get certain management perks. They decide that a manager is "good" based on how much time they spend "working", i.e. doing the same thing they did before becoming a manager. New managers often bring this world view with them when they assume their first managerial position. What ends up happening is that the new manager, partly to get on his subordinates' good side and partly because he doesn't know any better, spends all of his time doing things rather than ensuring that things get done. The result is that true managerial responsibilities, such as planning, allocating of resources and employee development, are neglected. The employees likely think that they have a "good" manager, but upper management just sees a highly paid clerk.

Some neophyte managers go the other way. Their opinion of managers was simply people who got to boss other people around, so when they become managers themselves, they make no effort to actually manage, but lord it over their subordinates. Employees generally think that these managers are "bad", since they don't "work". They also tend to take whatever orders they receive from upper management and deliver them to their team without any filter, so the higher ups, at least initially, like them.

This isn't to say that effective managers can't come up through the ranks, or aren't often self-taught. But there are a lot of people out there, who need to earn more, yet do not have management skills, but end up being promoted into management anyway. In the various service and retail industries in which I have been employed I have seen people promoted into management for two main reasons: (1) They were good at the non-management work that they did or (2) They knew how to schmooze the hiring manager. Seldom did a job interview involve questions about leadership qualities or administrative abilities. People frequently applied for positions that they were unqualified for simply because they paid more. I can't say I really blame them. If there are no other avenues for financial advancement, why not roll the dice and try for it? Especially since it could be seen that other non-qualified people had been promoted.

In my retail grocery career, I saw an interesting phenomenon with job applications. At the store level it had a relatively flat organizational chart. There was a store director & assistant store director at the top, department managers running the various sections of the store (sometimes with assistant managers) and clerks below that. In some of the smaller department the managers were doing a lot of the day-to-day work in addition to managing. When a management position opened up, there might be 3-4 applicants, depending on the size of the store, usually clerks who were already working in that department, or an assistant manager in another store. Sometimes there were no applicants. But when an assistant store director or human resources coordinator position was posted it wasn't unusual to see 12-15 applicants, 75% of them with no relevant experience. I thought it might be because no one really knew what the people in either of those positions really did, they thought it didn't involve any real work, and surely it paid a lot!

So what's the solution? There really are two problems: (1) Unqualified people being promoted into management and (2) No path for wage increases outside of management.

Here's a few thoughts:
Create a path for valuable, experienced employees to earn wages comparable to management positions
In some businesses this happens to an extent. When I worked for a newspaper, the unionized pressmen earned wages comparable to sales reps and some managers; pharmacists in grocery stores are often the highest paid employees, including the store director

Be clear regarding what precisely is expected of managers
Hardly anyone knows what managers are supposed to be doing. Making it known what managers do, other than "bossing people around", might motivate some employees to develop real management skills before they become managers

Set up training/education classes for prospective managers

This would be beneficial to any company that wants their managers to do what managers are supposed to do: ensure that things get done. 

Audience Participation

There was an article the other day about an artist that I had never heard of flying off the handle when her audience didn't respond enthusiastically enough during a performance. In an expletive-filled tirade she stopped the song and complained loudly about the lukewarm response, referring to how much work she put into the song.

It's understandable that a singer would be upset that her work of art that she put so much time, love & energy into (although the online comments suggest maybe not so much of any of those) would be received so tepidly. I've heard musicians complain about people talking during their performances (this I understand - I go to a show to listen to music, not the loud opinionated guy on the next bar stool). On the other hand when I'm experiencing live music, I didn't sign on to become part of the entertainment.

Back in my younger days I used to attend Twisted Sister shows. There was a band that insisted on audience participation. Not only were you goaded into the expected responses, but if you happened to be quietly standing in the back, you were singled out for abuse. Not something that was all that enjoyable. I've also been at shows where the audience was lectured for clapping on 1 & 3 instead of 2 & 4 (2 & 4 is correct, right?). Okay, I get how off-beat clapping can throw a band off, but hey, I'm not the musician here!

But the truth is that there are a variety of different ways in which people express their appreciation for music. Singing the chorus when encouraged to do so, dancing, cheering, (clapping on 2 & 4), "putting your hands in the air", yelling the appropriate response when the singers asks "is everyone doin' alright?" are all traditionally acceptable. How about shutting the hell up during an acoustic or otherwise quiet song? Taking non-obtrusive photos (that's what I like to do), and sharing them with the band, buying some merch, or just thanking the band after the show for a great show. All of these things, in their own way, express admiration and appreciation for the performance.

Just like every musician is unique, and there are a variety of musical genres, every fan is a unique and there are a variety of ways to to express enthusiasm and love for music.

Saving Seats

 Saving seats. When is it okay? When is it not? When is it a sign of douchebaggery? I'm thinking about it this morning because I'm sitting in a locally owned coffee shop, and across from me is a man who has been here for at least an hour, "saving" four tables for friends who have not arrived yet. (As I was typing this, one friend showed up) I've seen him do this before (in fact every time I have been in here on a Sunday morning). On this particular morning it hasn't caused any problems, since there are other booths and tables available, and no one has been unable to find a seat due to this man's actions. In this case no harm has been done by the seat-saving. Everybody gets a seat and Mr. Early-Bird-Seat-Saver has been able to ensure that all of his friends will be sitting together. But I've been in here during other times when there were absolutely no other seats in the place, the only unoccupied chairs were the fifteen that were being saved. Now, in this case, if I was to walk in, and find no seats available, I would not feel guilty about grabbing one of the "saved" tables, but I would surely be risking a confrontation. In a case like this, you have to be willing to take the bull by the horns and tell the saver that you're taking his "saved" table and damn the consequences.

While looking for some images to accompany this post, I came across several articles about saving seats on Southwest Airlines. As anyone who has flown on Southwest knows, you don't get assigned seats. You can pay a premium for early boarding, but it's first-come, first-seated. But some people, travelling with their family, have found a way around this. They pay for one premium early boarding ticket and then save as many additional seats as they need. Southwest doesn't have a policy against doing this, and their website is full of complaints about the practice. I wonder what the flight crew would do if a fed-up passenger simply sat in a "saved" seat and refused to relinquish it? Just like in the coffee shop, you'd have to be willing to risk some confrontation and act without asking permission.

A lot of the images that I found dealt with seat-saving in church. That reminds me of an incident a few years back when I was at a week-long event put on by a Christian group. The evening service took place in a giant tent and went on for several hours; it included not only the sermon, or teaching, but music, announcements, and awards presentations. This usually meant that the need for a bathroom break would be assumed. The rule was, that if you had to get up, your bible saved your seat. One evening my family and I decided that we wanted to try to sit up front, so we were close to first in line waiting for the doors to open. When they did, we were surrounded by a stampede of people racing to the front to claim their seats. Somehow we safely made it to the front of the tent, just as a man, loaded down with about a dozen bibles, pushed in front of us and slammed down a bible on every seat in the front row of that section. When the dust had cleared, the tent was only about 10% full, but miraculously, every seat was saved.

My final example involves my favorite live music venue. There's a guy, who because he has the time to do so, saves a table for his friends most nights. This is not usually a problem, since by show time the table is usually more than full. But for some of the more popular shows he has been observed saving multiple tables. If that isn't bad enough, he then goes to the bar, taking up a bar stool as well. More often than not, he'll go across the street, where they have a wider variety of beer. I have to admit that I've saved tables and bar stools myself, but (1) I stay with the table; I don't leave the bar for hours and (2) if the people I am saving the space for don't show up by show time I give the space up to someone else. I've actually made a lot of friends by inviting last minute arrivals to sit with me. It's frustrating to show up for a band an hour before the show and find out that every seat is saved, but that there's very few people physically in the bar.

Let me propose a few seat saving rules:

1. Saving more than one table is prohibited
2. If the seats are not at tables (i.e. bar stools, theater style seating) saving more than one seat is prohibited
3. At least one person must stay with the table (exceptions: bathroom breaks or quick runs to get something to eat - food must be brought back to the saved seat or table)
4. Once the event (concert, church, movie) starts, all claims to saved seats expire
5. In all situations where you pay a premium for early admittance saving seats in prohibited (see Southwest Airlines example above) - this would also apply to situations where purchasing tickets prior to a deadline gets you early admittance (Exception: you may save seats for any others who are also eligible for early admittance

Show up early or stand!