Managers Part V - Expert Power

We have looked at several sources of influence that a manager has over subordinates: Legitimate Power - the power that comes from a title or job description; Reward Power - that which comes from bestowing promotions, raises, coveted schedules etc; and Coercive Power - the ability to influence by inflicting or withholding punishment. Next we will be looking at Expert Power - the ability to influence others through special knowledge or skills.

Management is a skill in and off itself that does not necessarily derive from the ability to do the job that your subordinates are doing. For example, a manager in a manufacturing plant may have assembly line workers, janitorial staff, accountants, and salesmen on the payroll. It isn't reasonable to expect that the plant manager knows how to do all  of those jobs. However, most people tend to listen to managers who have demonstrated a proficiency in a particular area and trust their judgment in that area. For example, in my current job my immediate supervisor has 30 years of experience and has expertise in multiple areas of the department. She knows the rules, regulations and laws that apply to all aspects of the job, and as such, commands a lot of respect due to her extensive knowledge. The influence that can be wielded by being an "expert" manager is going to vary from industry to industry and from position to position within an industry, but being an expert will only be an effective source of management power if coupled with other skills (to be discussed later).

Ones status as a nonmanagerial expert can sometimes lead to problems. As I stated earlier, management is a skill in and of itself, somewhat separate from any industry in which it functions. Oftentimes, an expert's skills in their area of expertise leads to a promotion to the ranks of management where they find that they are completely unprepared, never having earned the craft of managing, having concentrated on the skills that were being managed.

Go Ahead, Make My Day (That Day is Tuesday November 8th)

The fact that Hillary Clinton has been accused of many corrupt and "crooked" dealings is surely proof that she is corrupt and "crooked".

The fact that she has never been convicted or even charged with any of the crimes that she so surely has committed is proof that she is above the law and can get away with being corrupt and "crooked".

Does the cognitive dissonance that holding the above ideas cause blood vessels in your head to spontaneously explode?

I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton is as pure as the driven snow, or that she doesn't possess a healthy portion of arrogance, but why has that suddenly become a requirement for a Presidential candidate?

People have been gunning for Hillary Clinton for years, and yet nothing sticks. If she's guilty of all that she is accused of, then she apparently has control over the criminal justice system and the Republicans in Congress, because after the longest Congressional investigation in history, which followed seven other Congressional committee investigations, the purpose of which, the committee chairman admitted, was to bring down Hillary Clinton, they came up with nothing.

The idea that the Hillary Clinton is corrupt and "crooked" is part of the media narrative that has been stoked and lovingly nurtured over the last two decades with little or no real evidence, and latched upon by not only the Republicans, but by other Democrats to whom she isn't progressive enough. Everything she does is interpreted in light of this narrative...it makes a good story. And for most people, they dislike Hillary Clinton because they are told that they should.

Us vs. Them

It is possible to support the police and the job that they do without supporting the continued killing of unarmed men and boys.

I realize that there are circumstances when a police officer has to shoot someone, and yes, kill them. If someone is pointing a gun at an officer, or at a civilian; if someone is holding a gun and ignores an order to put it down; if a fleeing  armed suspect presents a threat if he escapes. Police officers are charged with protecting the lives and property of the people. I might even admit that someone trying to disarm a police officer, or charging at him (or her) with a weapon that isn't a gun could be acceptable.

But why do we think that it's acceptable to shoot someone if a police officer thinks that there's a gun, or thinks that someone is reaching for a weapon. Since when is it worthy of a summary execution to run away from a police officer? Sure, you can rationalize that someone wouldn't run if they hadn't committed some crime, and statistically, you'd probably be right, but is it really necessary to shoot a shoplifter who runs from a cop? Is resisting arrest by struggling to break free from a choke hold a capital offense?

My father and brother were both police officers. It makes me angry to hear people speaking hatefully or disrespectfully about the police. But anyone who thinks that the police are not profiling black people, poor people, inner-city people, is fooling themselves. I have never had any problem with the police, mainly because I didn't commit any crimes, but also because I don't look like someone who commits crimes. But about 15 years ago I moved into a little run-down apartment building downtown. The place was a dump; I was the only person there who actually went to work every day. Everyone else was doing drugs, selling drugs, thinking about drugs...you get the picture. The police were out there a lot. When I was in or around the apartment I found that the police treated me very differently. One example was the 3:00AM knock on the door by a cop with a police dog, shouting questions at me. The police assumed I was a criminal, or at least criminally inclined, because of where I lived. After that experience I find it hard to believe that it doesn't happen on a larger scale.

Despite the vicious circle nature of what's been happening: cop shoots unarmed black man, black people riot, loot and taunt the police, police are more on edge and shoot another unarmed black man, crazed black man shoots some cops, cops get very on edge - the onus lies with responsible people to stop the violence. And that starts with the police. The police cannot become "just another gang" as Commander Sam Vimes says in Terry Pratchett's Night Watch. The police are the representatives of civilization, of order, they cannot conduct vendettas and acts of revenge, large and small. They cannot close ranks and pretend some of their brothers haven't acted badly. They cannot use the actions of the criminal element among poor blacks to justify waging war on all poor blacks. We expect criminals to committ crimes, that's why they call them criminals. We expect the police to fight crime, not to participate as principals in a gang war.

Before you say it out loud, yes, black-on-black crime is a problem, and not a small one, but it's a different problem that has little or nothing to do with police killing of unarmed citizens. And yes, rioting following or during protests is wrong and makes things worse, but again, it's a different problem. None of these different problems justifies killing unarmed citizens, unprovoked. Black lives matter (too) - the only reason that it had to be said is that it often doesn't appear that black lives matter at all.

Third Party or Independent Candidates

There are more people running for President than the presumptive nominees of the two major parties. It is true that we have (and always have had) more than two choices. The problem is that, due to ballot access laws differing from state to state, there is no third party that is on the ballot in all 50 states (although the Libertarian Party is projected to be on the ballot in all 50 this November). Therefore a third party cadidate starts out behind right at the starting line, since he or she can receive no electoral votes in the states where his or her party does not appear on the ballot. But wait, what about write-in and independent (on the ballot, but not affiliated with a party) candidacies? According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates) a candidate must petition each state separately in order to appear on the ballot. The rules vary from state to state; Ballotpedia estimates almost 900,000 signatures would be required nationwide to ensure appearing on the ballot in all 50 states. Another option is write-in candidacies. This is something you hear a lot about. Many major party voters, unhappy with their party's nominee, muse about voting for their preferred candidate by writing in their name. The problem with this scenario is that in seven states write-in voting for President is prohibited. You jus can't do it, so even an organizeed write-in run would start out seven states behind before the voting even starts. 35 states require some kind of paperwork be filed before the election. The remaining 8 require no paperwork for a write-in candidates votes to count. So you can see why a vote for a third party, independent or write-in candidate is often derided as a wated vote. The system is designed to exclude these other choices. 

In many states, ballot access is granted when a party polls a certain percentage of total votes cast in a state election; in Nebraska it is the gubernatorial election. Exceed the benchmark and you have a spot on tyhe ballot for your party's nominee. The problem is that you have to do this every election. Years ago the Libertarian Party was on the ballot in Nebraska, but lost that spot when they failed to maintain the minimum numbers of votes in elections for governor. They are back on the ballot again, but staying there is not guaranteed. 

For those who want more choices for President, it should be obvious that much needs to change. 

Yes, I'm Voting for Clinton

There are some of you out there who would never vote for Hillary Clinton mainly because you think she's a liberal, some because she's not a liberal, some because you believe that she's a liar, or corrupt, or that you "feel" that she's untrustworthy, or because of Benghazi or the email server or because she "rigged" the Democratic primaries & caucuses. Some of you don't like her because she stood up for her husband, or just don't like her husband - or maybe you think she had Vince Foster killed.

The political things I won't address in this article. If you have a principled stand against her politics (not a strawman version of her politics, but her actual politics), good for you, you're thinking before you vote. But if you're of the opinion that's she's the only politician that's every shaded the truth, prevaricated, attempted to divert attention or outright lied, you sir or madam, are living in a fantasy land where enlightened rulers make everything alright...all hail King Ellasar! (had to work in the Lord of the Rings reference). She makes speeches and gets paid for it; I'm not too worked up about that either - is she the first politician to ever do that? She vilified as being crooked and corrupt, yet nothing manages to stick. Some of you believe that that's evidence of a massive conspiracy to allow the Clinton's to get away with what no one else could get away with, despite the seemingly never-ending "investigations", the goal of which the Republican committee chair admitted were to bring down Hillary Clinton...not to discover the truth.

Hillary Clinton's positions on most things are in line with where I sit on the political spectrum" left-leaning centrist-moderate. Although she's a little more hawkish than I would like, she does have the respect of many top generals and admirals and does understand the international situation. The fact is that Clinton has more relevant experience, not only than her Republican Party opponent, but than anyone else who was interested in the job. She would be a steady hand - she's not an idealogue. A criticism that I heard earlier this year was that no one was passionate about their support for Clinton. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not voting for someone who can raise hell and inflame the masses, I'm voting for someone who can reasonably and rationally lead our country as chief executive and represent our country abroad. I'm not worried about her supposed lack of charisma either - we're not electing a prom queen.

Parenthood

There's a lot of ways to be a good parent. There's lots of ways to be a bad parent. It's a given (at least in our Western culture) that you do your best to love your kids, protect them and give them every opportunity to succeed in life. Oh yeah, feed them and clothe them too! My main objectives as a parent where to guide my children toward the ultimate goal of being responsible adults. After all, for the majority of their lives they would be adults. Part of this long-range goal was to encourage them to think, to be able to figure out how to solve problems on their own and to take responsibility for their actions. One school of parenting thought is to do everything for your kids and cater to their every want and need; enroll them in every sport and activity, drop everything to drive them to parties, buy them whatever they want. There are definitely some long-range benefits to giving your children a wide variety of experiences and to allow them to enjoy their childhood, and I'd never fault a parent for sacrificing in order to provide a spectrum of opportunities for a child. But what I have observed is that in many cases a sense of entitlement develops in a child who is given everything. They see this as the natural order of things and have little or no appreciation for the lengths which their parents go through to give them this life. Parents are treated disrespectfully in private and in public. This entitlement and disrespect carries over into school and eventually into the wide world of employment.

Giving your child everything, without also teaching them to value what they have been given isn't doing them any favors. It's not the giving and the doing that is the problem, it's the failure to teach that a price is being paid  by someone for all that opportunity.

Managers Part IV - Reward & Coercion Based Management

At some point the rookie manager will realize that the title and the name tag that goes along with it is pretty ineffective at influencing people. A few managers skip these next two methods, but most do not and employ the carrot and stick method of management: Rewards and Coercion. Some amateurs combine both methods, but most enjoy the coercive source of power do to the many opportunities for yelling.

There are many types of punishment that can be meted out to create the atmosphere of fear that some managers believe is necessary to compel obedience. The "write up" and it's good buddy the suspension, assigning "crap jobs" to trouble-makers, and the ever popular yelling. Rewards are listed as a separate source of power, but the withholding of rewards goes hand-in-hand with coercion. Managers who lead from Source #3 and the withholding portion of Source #2 are universally rated by employees as "bad" bosses, but for all the raised voices and threats, these managers have little more success than Source #1 managers at getting people to do what they want, in addition to the normal slacking off, you now have added employees who will actively undermine and sabotage the boss's efforts.

Bosses who lead from the giving side of Source #2 (we'll refer to it as #2a) are often thought of as "good" bosses by many employees. They are free with praise, give them whatever schedule that they want, don't assign them any tasks that they might find unpleasant and generally give employees free reign to do whatever they want. The problem with this kind of manager is that not only is he allowing the employees to manage him but this kind of leadership inevitably generates employees who will take advantage of the #2a manager's "good nature". This engenders feelings that some employees are "teacher's pets" and "get away with murder". Many years ago I worked for one of these managers. I was a subordinate manager and he was the head manager at our place of business. One of the more frustrating aspects of working for him was that he would lay down rules, schedules, expectations, but would not follow up to make sure that his directives were being followed. When I attempted to enforce some of his rules, the employees, used to being coddled, would react poorly and he would overrule me. To this day he is loved by most of his employees and would be rated a "good" manager by many...but not by all.

The problem with depending on either #2 a or b, or #3, as a source of authority is that it's essentially either bribery or blackmail. These managers are not teaching their subordinates to do their jobs well because it's their job, but because they are either getting something (a bribe) or are being threatened with punishment (blackmail).

Managers Part III - Sources of Power

Managers have power over their subordinates. How they choose to exercise that power determines whether or not they are a "good" or "bad" manager. Here is a listing of some sources of power and brief definitions:

1. Legitimate Power: The ability to influence other due to one's position, office or formal authority
2. Reward Power: The ability to influence others by giving or withholding rewards such as pay, promotions, time off, etc.
3. Coercive Power: The ability to influence others through punishment
4. Expert Power: The ability to influence others through special knowledge or skills
5. Referent Power: Power that comes from personal characteristics that people value, respect or admire

Some of these are related - for example, Reward and Coercive Power are two sides of the same coin. Both of these to some extent flow from Legitimate Power. 

Before looking at some of these categories, I want to emphasize that the ability for a manager or leader to exercise power depends to a certain extent upon the degree to which an employee allows the manager to have that power. For instance, I don't play the lottery, or gamble at all for that matter, but I used to joke that if won the Powerball, I wouldn't quit my job like so many people do, but I would continue to come to work but simply refuse to do anything that I didn't want to do! Some of these categories of power won't work if the employee doesn't really need the job, or has the ability to change jobs quickly. 

Source #1, Legitimate Power is kind of like an unspoken contract - the manager gets to tell you what to do simply because of the title, you have to comply due to your lack of one. However, this source of power is largely theoretical. A manager who is relying solely on Source #1 will likely only get people to follow directives when physically present. Employees who are dealing with a manager who leads from Source #1 will be the kind of employees who "milk the clock", who sneak extra cigarette breaks, who look really busy while not actually getting anything done. Managers can use this as an argument ender: "because I'm the boss", this may end the immediate argument, but it rarely solves the problem. It is truly the amateur manager who believes that the title makes one an effective manager. The Source #1 Manager isn't necessarily "bad", usually just inexperienced.

Managers Part II - The Purpose of a Business

Before we look at the qualities of a manager, let's look at the environment in which a manager functions - a business. The first thing to remember about a business is that it exists primarily to make money for the owners or shareholders of the business. Whatever charitable impulses that an owner may harbor, no matter how much he donates, none of that would be possible without turning a profit.

A few years ago I attended a shareholders meeting for the company that employed me. The company had what is referred to as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The way it worked was that a certain percentage of the profits were set aside as profit sharing to most employees, allocated according to their salaries. The company president, the son of the company founder was talking about this program as if it was an example of his father's care and concern for his employees. The founder himself, at that time pushing 90, was in attendance. He was asked what his reasoning was for setting up the ESOP. He responded that he thought it was a good way to legally lower his tax liability and still have use of the cash. A pretty honest answer, one that his son apparently wasn't honest enough to give. The point is, that maybe your company's owners do care about you on some level, but the bottom line is money. Many people who have seen their jobs migrate out of the country have found this out.

Many of the people that I've worked with over the years had the odd notion that their job existed solely for their convenience or that their paycheck should correspond to their household budgetary needs. People who claimed that they were available to work certain shifts and were hired because they could work those shifts, suddenly couldn't work those shifts.

In a perfect world, businesses would figure out what needed to be accomplished and when it needed to be done, calculate how many people it took to do it and hire the exact number of people they had determined they needed. They would set a pay rate that was sufficient to draw in enough people who had the skills needed. People would apply for those jobs because the pay and the schedule were what they needed and the requirements were within their abilities.

Awww...that's cute.

What happens in reality is that a business first determines what percentage of sales they will spend on payroll. Now this obviously means that as sales fluctuate, what a business will spend on payroll will also fluctuate. This, despite the fact that many things still need to be done even if no customers walk through the door. Managers are expected to manage their employees' schedules to conform to these percentages. Managers who can't do this usually find out fairly quickly that they are no longer managers.

So, what we're talking about here is that the manager, who is first and foremost a representative of the business and not your buddy, is being paid to make sure that the company is making as much money as possible. How that manager maximizes profits will determine whether the employees think he or she is a "good" manager or a "bad" manager, but make no mistake about it, Priority #1 is always to turn a profit. Anything that gets in the way of that, even you, will eventually be eliminated.

This is the environment in which your boss operates, every day.

Managers Part I - What Makes a Good One?

First off, I'm not going to engage in the trendy supposition that being a leader is different than being a manager or a "boss". A manager is a job title, or it can be viewed as a skill or career path. Leadership is a quality that one can have, whether or not one is in a position of "official" leadership. "Boss" is simply a colloquialism for "manager". I will use these terms more or less interchangeably.

A manager, in simplest terms, is someone whose main job responsibility is to "get things done" by way of managing, directing, coaching, analyzing and planning. A manager has goals and objectives that he or she is tasked with achieving and usually has a group of people that assist in achieving those goals. What makes a "good" manager versus a "bad" manager? Sometimes that depends on who you ask. A front-line employee might view a good manager as one who steps back and lets everybody "do their job". A front-office director might view a good manager as one who get results. The problem with those viewpoints is that they each ignore the other. What an employee might see as "doing her job" might just be what is convenient or "the way it's always been done", while the front office's focus on results often ignores the fact that there are real people acheieving those results. A good manager balances both sides of the equation.

Even though I started this article over a month ago, I was motivated to pick it up again after listening to an NPR story about "best" and "worst" bosses. I mentioned to my wife that I would probably show up on both those lists!

What I am going to explore over the course of several blog posts are the qualities of a "good" manager, with reference to examples of "bad" management. Some of the characteristics we will look at are:

• The Purpose of a Business
• Delegation
• Influence
• Respect
• Knowledge
• Empowerment
• Teaching & Coaching
• Accountability

I may use examples of leadership in politics, the military and sports, but I will be focussing on the role of managers in business.

Hopefully these posts will give a good overview of management as more than just people telling other people what to do.