EIGHT HOURS OF MANAGING: APPLICATION OF THEORY INTO CASUAL OBSERVATION

Crystal Czubernet                                                                                                               

Susan Lancaster

Gregg Martinez                                                                                                           

Alexandra McDonald

Eight Hours of Managing: Application of Theory Into Casual Observation

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

OL554 – Management Philosophy and Practice

Week 6: Team Submission

December 7, 2013
Dr. Bridget Olsen

Introduction

Mintzberg (2009) stated: “Managing is not one of these things but all of them: it is controlling and doing and dealing and thinking and leading and deciding and more, not added up but blended together" (pp. 44). In order to better understand management styles and/or theories, we conducted manager observations and compared the experiences to the Mintzberg Model. It is important to note that “casual observations lack statistically valid experimental design and are likely to yield unreliable information” (Wilhere, 2002, pp. 22); team members have diverse relationships with their manager, completed differing observation hours, and concentrated on certain traits exhibited by the manager. Although members were completing the same task, their shadowing experiences were unique. Uniqueness of members’ experiences is a result of shadowing managers exhibiting differences in style/managerial approach, vocational industries, and amount of time shadowing. For the purpose of this paper, sections are broken down into sections to include: an explanation of the Mintzberg Model: Information, People, and Action; introduction of managers; comparison of observation findings of each plane; and a conclusion integrating overall experience and its relativity to the Mintzberg Model.

The Model

Henry Mintzberg utilized behavioral observations of five chief executives to generate the model now known as the Mintzberg Model (Mintzberg, 2009). He found that a “manager’s job was characterized by many brief episodes carried out with a wide variety of different people from inside and out-side the organization” (Carroll & Gillen, 1987, pp. 39). This theory supports the idea that “managing takes place on three planes, from the conceptual to the concrete: with information, through people, and to action directly” (Mintzberg, 2009, pp. 49). For the purposes of this paper, we will briefly describe each plane here (Mintzberg, 2009):

Information – Leading through communication and controlling internal and external factors. According to Mintzberg (2009), “to manage through information means to sit two steps removed from the ultimate purpose of managing: information is processed by the manager to encourage other people to take the necessary actions” (pp. 52).

            Internal Communication – Monitoring and nerve central

            External Communication – Spokesperson, nerve central, and disseminating

Through People – Leading internally and linking externally. Mintzberg (2009) describes managing through people is to “move one step close to action but still to remain removed from it” (pp. 63).

            Internal leading – Developing, team building, energizing, and strengthening culture

External Linking – Transmitting, buffering, networking, representing, and convincing/conveying

Action Directly – Leading by doing what needs to be done internally, dealing with the external. Mintzberg (2009) emphasized the importance of efficient action, one that is well informed to make robust decisions utilizing both the information and people planes.

            Internal Handling – Handling disturbances and managing projects
            External Dealing – Mobilizing support and building coalitions

Choosing a Manager and Observation Concentrations

Members began by establishing a team charter to develop a strategy of observation to ensure a seamless final product and that members are held accountable with a designated task. Members were responsible for identifying a manager to shadow and complete a minimum of 5 hours of observation. However, hours of shadowing varied among members. To avoid discrepancies we developed four primary components to focus on during observations:

Time management – Email correspondence, meetings, shadowing subordinates

Conflict Management – Motivational strategy and resolving conflicts

Delegation Style – How to delegate to ensure flow of system

Leadership Style – Micromanaging vs. Collaborative

The Managers

For the purpose of this paper, we will introduce the managers shadowed:

Dr. Breen – Newly hired Provost for a not-for-profit college in Southern California, focusing on Academics, Student Services, and Admissions. Manager has over 30 years of higher education experience.

Mr. Mitra – Newly promoted Assistant Dean of Student Affairs for a not-for-profit college in New York City, focusing on 11 areas within Student Affairs. Manager has over 10 years of higher education experience.

Ms. Smith – Finance Manager, recently resigned during observation, for a not-for-profit Domestic Violence Service Center. Manager has 11 years of experience.

Matt – Team Manager, 15 years of experience and Walter – Head Contract Manager, 10 years of experience. Both work for an International call center that contracts with several leading organizations.

Information Plane

After evaluating each members report, we noticed many similarities in management in regards to the information plane presented by the Mintzberg Model. One similarity was the manager’s ability to lead through monitoring and nerve center. All managers successfully executed communication, ensuring that employees performed effectively and appropriately, as well as delegation, guaranteeing completion of duties. A second similarity is that all managers served as a spokesperson and disseminated, passing information internally and externally when needed. However, the level of disseminating varied among managers based on the individual needs of each organization.

Although these similarities exist, there are also differences on the information plane. The first major difference is that one manager had difficulty delegating her duties while the other three managers were able to successfully delegate. Additionally, this manager also experienced a higher level of overall performance pressure associated with internal communication and control. The team member attributed this manager’s hesitation to a personal preference to independently complete tasks. A second major difference between managers was their ability to stand as spokesperson and disseminate information. The reason for this difference can be attributed to the organizational needs and individual needs in relation to the number of people employed and volume of tasks that must be completed.

People Plane

            During this process, it was clear that each manager had significant experience working with people. For example, each manager believed that establishing and strengthening the culture within the organization was important to productivity. A uniform culture encouraged people’s best efforts because they align with efforts of the organization. We also found that all managers focused on developing individuals; they may view themselves as a coach, trainer, teacher or counselor, but each manager found a way to integrate individual development in their managing style. Mintzberg describes the best method to develop individuals is when managers help people develop themselves (Mintzberg, 2009).

A major difference that we observed among the four managers was that half focused on team development, while the others did not. Mintzberg wrote that developing teams, “resolves conflict within and between these groups so that they can get on with their work (pp. 68). Some managers believed that team development was an important component to organizational success. The individuals who did not focus on team development focused on individual development. For example, one of the managers’ functions was focused around finance, which appeared to be a less focused on teams than another manager. In contrast, another managers’ function was standing as a Dean, creating faculty/staff developmental teams.

Action Plane

While observing the action plane, we found that two managers had difficulty in achieving success in this plane. One manager had many items on their daily agenda, which we attributed to tension between employees and executive leaders. This tension resulted in feelings of apprehension and fear of failure, leading to inefficient and ineffective workplace action. The second manager had difficulty getting relevant financial information in a timely manner to the Board of Directors and the Executive Director, which resulted in the manager making uninformed and illogical decisions. Both managers were not efficient in working the people or information plane, making actions feel unattainable. In addition, due to manager’s inability to take action, the information plane and people plane were directly affected creating a negative cyclic environment for all employees. Truly, if a manager is not engaging in one area of the model, the rest of the model suffers.

            In contrast, the other two managers were busy and needed dealing and linking in order to successfully achieve their workflow. One manager embodied the effort needed to set forth through the action plane. He assumed a leadership role for eleven areas within Student Affairs almost assuring he will have all the necessary information to make a robust decision. He also embodied the transformational leadership as a method of inspiring growth and delegation of work. The only downfall this manager exhibited was to take on too much as he consistently came in early, stayed late, and worked through his lunch breaks. The second manager was also busy utilized the action plane to achieve her workflow. However, this manager chose a more transactional style of leadership through directing individuals on how or when to do or say specific things in order to accomplish their goal. In general, the form of dealing and linking of both managers appeared to help refine their people and information plane of the Mintzberg Model. Interestingly enough, we now understand the meaning of Mintzberg circular planes.

Conclusion

Closing this experience, members developed an increased awareness of the function of a manager and a better understanding of how theory application can aid in understanding the differences in management style. Members were able to apply the Mintzberg Model while shadowing their manager, noting manager style of giving and retrieving information, interaction of leading and linking with employees and outside resources, and their ability to put thought into action through internal handling and external dealing. Some members found all three planes a success through their shadowing experience, while some found a mixture of two planes or found no success in any of the Mintzberg planes. In general, we found varied results because of manager’s personal style, size of the organization, organizational demands on the employees, and number of people employed. It was clear to us, through these observations, that without good information, people, and action planes, a company will eventually fail. In regards to findings of manager’s ability to manage their time, solve conflicts, delegate appropriately, and leadership style effectiveness/ineffectiveness, the same variance was found. Overall, our team found that Mintzberg provided some light and wisdom when observing managers and acting as a manager when he wrote (2009, pp. 89): “We don’t need people-oriented, information-orientated or action-oriented managers; we need managers who operate on all three planes. 

References

Carroll, S. J., & Gillen, D. J. (1987). Are the classical management functions useful in describing managerial work?. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 39.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wilhere, G. F. (2002). Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 22.