A good manager? What makes a good manager?

 

     LinkedIn is a place for lots of polled surveys. A recent survey asked (more or less) -- "what percentage of your managers have been good managers?". This brought up two questions within me. First, of course, is how would I answer the question? Second is "what IS a good manager?" Each person knows whether or not they believe that their manager is a good one but is there some set of criteria that most people would agree upon?

     Managerial duties will, in part, depend upon development methodology. If an Agile methodology is in use, then the managers (and I will use the same term for whatever level one may be working at) have much less input into task assignments and routing of requirements. For SCRUM, those duties will spread to the product owner, scrum master, and development team. Since a manager is responsible for primary evaluation as to how someone is performing, they do have to monitor team and individual developer progress and bug rates -- but not for assigning.

     Since titles and processes will change names depending on the development and managerial methodology being followed, I will present my views on evaluation of managers in a more generic fashion.

     There is one task that is required of all people fulfilling a managerial role -- ensuring that information about needed tasks are distributed to those who will be doing them and making sure that the tasks are done and results reported. Visually, this is a horizontal spread of information. Although tasks are likely to come from an "upward" direction, this may be hidden in some organizations. This set of tasks also includes evaluation and passing along information needed for individual improvement.

     If a person is NOT doing this task then, in my opinion, they are NOT being a manager. If they are supposed to be a manager then they are a very bad one if they don't perform these tasks. It is also possible they have a poorly chosen title and they are not meant to follow the requirements of being a manager. Perhaps their title SHOULD be something like "function coordinator"?

     Beyond the foundation of horizontal information movement, there is vertical movement. Note that some organizations consider themselves to have a "flat" organization -- but few, if any, are completely "flat". In the downward direction, tasks are involved with productivity and career growth and development of individuals. Minimal tasks are for the company. Optimal tasks extend to doing things to work with the employee. Such actions often also provide benefits to the company as a whole.

     The other vertical direction is towards "upper" layers. This is movement of product and corporate ideas. Some movement may return from upper layers but ideas, suggestions, product and methodology improvements, and other items to improve the company as a whole may use the manager as a conduit. The manager's job is to keep the information in motion and to make sure appropriate groups, or individuals, retain history and credit for such improvements.

     I started off this blog with the notice of a survey. What were the general results of such? What were my answers? I'm not certain that the survey is closed but, at the time that I last looked at results, it seemed that people felt that only less than 25% of their managers had been good managers. Their definitions of good managers may not be in sync with my thoughts above but such a viewpoint should be very sobering. It does, however, seem to be in agreement with other surveys concerning morale and employment work commitment.

     As for me, I have had six (6) managers over my career. It is a low number because a large part was spent as an independent contractor (without a manager) and as the co-founder and co-owner of my own company in which I had no manager. Nonetheless, there were six people who acted as managers. I had one who was great, one who was good, two who were mediocre, and two who were awful. So, this would give me an "above average" amount of 33% of my managers being "good" managers.

      My great manager performed all basic and proactive functions of a manager very well. Note that -- probably not coincidentally -- they continued to do very well with promotions and expansion of responsibilities and duties as their career has progressed. The good manager performed the horizontal tasks very well with vertical tasks done when thought of -- not proactive but still responsive. I have lost touch with that person so I do not know current status.

     The two mediocre managers took care of the basic horizontal tasks but really ignored both their employees as developing people as well as corporate directions and projects. Ah, but the two awful ones. They didn't even fulfill basic horizontal tasks. They were bothered by a disability of mine which did not affect my work but did create embarrassment for them. Unable to do anything directly since it was protected by the U.S. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), they chose the routes of passive-aggressive refusal to assign work and mark it on reviews as my not doing work while failing to mention their refusal to assign work. Their actions did not do the primary aspect of setting tasks and distributing them. They certainly did no improvement upon my path. And they failed the company in deliberately not making use of my experiences and capabilities.

     People have their own stories. They will not necessarily match up with the categories which I have listed above. There will be awful managers -- perhaps basing their actions out of various -isms (sexism, racism, ethnicism, ...) Or just having reached just a little bit past their level of competency. The best reaction is often to "vote with the feet" but hope springs eternal.

     What stories do you have?

Mentoring & coaching: What's the difference?

 

     My first mentee was at Bell Laboratories about 40 years ago. I had just completed my Master's degree and the location was expanding quickly so mentors were needed and I was willing. Over the years, I have been a mentor to a dozen people or so and coached another couple of dozen.

     Mentoring. Coaching. What's the difference? Well, certainly there is not a single correct answer to that question. For me, coaching is when I am trying to help someone perform a specific task. They have just been assigned to do Tier 3 customer support. They have a specific task to do. I work to help them to organize the structure of their new task to help them do the best they can. This may involve putting together scripts, sets of progressive questions, methods of debugging, and so forth. This should be done in conjunction with the person being coached so that they understand the reasons and the progression of the steps. Plus, there is a good chance that they will come up with ideas that I would not have considered. Having additional experience is not always good. Sometimes, having less experience puts you more into the shoes of your customers.

     But how about mentoring? Someone who is being mentored is also likely to have a specific task, or tasks, that have been assigned. Whether or not they need coaching will depend on how much, if any, experience they have doing those tasks.

     If they are new to the group, department, or company then they may be able to take advantage of mentoring. Mentoring should never be forced upon someone -- though having a mentor assigned as part of onboarding is a good idea in my opinion. The distinguishing thing about mentoring is that the mentor acts as a scout searching for obstacles, pitfalls, traps, and short cuts. The mentor should know how the company works -- we're not talking rule books or lists of protocols -- just how things get done (and how one can set oneself up for promotion, good reviews, ...)

     In a mentoring situation there may certainly be questions from the mentee. As in a job interview, this is a good thing as it indicates they are truly interested. More importantly, the mentor is there to answer questions that have not yet been posed. As the mentee onboards, a lot will be the basics. Where are the restrooms, which areas do they have access to and how do they obtain access to other areas when needed? What are the customs for food? Delivered? Out as a group? Once a week? Daily? What are the core hours when they need to be available?

     Once past the newbie stage, the answers become more involved and more tailored to the mentee. The mentor works with the mentee about career development. If not compatible between mentor and mentee, the mentor may try to move the menteeship to someone else more directly knowledgeable. What do you do? What do you not do? What people should be approached? How should they be approached? Which people should  be avoided? What end arounds can be done if you need information from someone who will not help? How does the mentee become known (in a positive way)?

     My mentees, over the years, have tended to do better within the companies than I have done. There is a difference between knowing how the interactions exist and being willing, and able, to work within them. But, without knowing those unwritten rules, people can be at a loss and flounder.

     Mentoring: answering the questions not known to be asked.

Interviewing: Feedback, Exchanges, and Lack of Assumptions

 

     I haven't interviewed a lot in my life in spite of a fairly long, varied, career. Most of the jobs that I have had are situations where they have been coming after me. First post-college job was primarily based on academics. Later jobs were based on direct interactions such that they knew I was well-qualified before they even considered me for a position.

     But, that doesn't mean that I haven't ever had interviews. I have had more interviews that I would consider "bad" than those considered "good". Much of the aspects of "bad" interviews have been assumptions on my part. If something is important to the interviewer, I expect them to ask questions about it such that I can answer. If aspects are not well flushed out, I expect further questions.

     Such is an ideal world. Welcome to the real world.

     Once, I was in an interview when they asked me something that showed total ignorance of the subject about which they were asking the question. What should I do? It is doubtful that the interviewer wanted to be told that they didn't know what they were doing. Yet, an answer must be given -- preferably one that would be satisfactory to the interviewer. In my past history, I choked. I just didn't know how to answer a nonsense question. Perhaps it was a deliberate nonsense question to see how I would deal with it?

     In another situation, I was applying for a technical/programming position within a large company. I passed the preliminary interviews via phone and written tests. On to an in-person interview. Remember, I was applying for a technical/programming position. When I got to the interview, I found that I was being interviewed for a marketing position. The interviewer looked at my resume and didn't know what to ask me -- nor did I know what to ask them. I had some marketing experience (primarily pre-sale support) but had no desire to get a marketing position. How do you tell the company that they mis-matched you?

     Another interview. Largely for management but with technical competency aspects required. We went into the interview and some questions were asked. I gave answers which were, admittedly, not complete as I was not highly experienced in the specific technical areas for which they were probing. The interviewer laughed it off and moved the questions to other technical areas. After the interview, I felt it had gone well. It hadn't. They had "written me off" in the first five or ten minutes and then proceeded to fill time for the rest of the 45 minute interview without ever trying to find out whether I could do the work.

     In yet another interview, I was asked how I had dealt with a specific type of personnel problem. Not only had I not experienced that type of personnel problem but my experiences had been the reverse of the interviewer's questions. Be prepared to answer questions on a "what if" basis. IF you had a particular situation, what would you do?

     It is easy to rant and rail about interviewers and interviewing but, once again, we are dealing with reality.

• Be prepared to tell them the information about yourself that you believe is applicable to the needs of the job -- don't assume they will ask you.
  
  
• If they ask nonsense questions, try to answer based on what you would say if they had asked a reasonable/relevant question. Don't directly tell them the question was nonsense.
  
  
• If they ask questions about which you have no experience, either say so and reply with information about a similar situation or be prepared to delve into a "what if" scenario and how you would deal with it.
  
  
• Probe for feedback -- "Is there something else you would like to know or something you need me to expand upon?"
  
  
• Ask questions. Ask questions about the job, the company, future directions, training, and how you would be evaluated. Unless it is a blind interview (you don't know with what company you are interviewing), research first.

     Above all, remember that an interview is mutual. They want to know if you are suitable for their needs and will be compatible with, and a positive force within, their business environment. You want to find out if it is a situation where your experience and abilities will be valued and, also, an environment in which you can continue to grow your career and yet have a rich personal life. While you should never try to insult an interviewer it should also not be a cause for concern to tell the truth as you see it because this may be an important aspect as to whether the position is for you.

     I have done more interviews than I have had as someone being interviewed. And, although I believe I know how to answer well in an interview, I do better at interviewing than at being interviewed.

     My interviews have primarily focused on the soft skills because, if they have the foundation, the tech skills can be learned. Soft skills are a lot harder to learn and can be quite painful to the teams while the person is learning them. Still, even with technical skills, I focus on what and why rather than how. A great mind is a great hire. A great mind with a great heart is a precious gem. I have hired some great folks who went on to continue to give back.