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.
