This
week we are introduced/reintroduced to the four manager models which shape our
beliefs and behaviors as public managers.
Quinn has summarized the four models by grouping each model separately
in 25 year segments which briefly summarize the major theories and theorist of that
period.
1900-1925: Rational Goal Model – characterized by an emphasis on goal
clarification, rational analysis and action taking with productivity and profit
as clear measurements to effective outcomes. Internal Process Model – characterized by an emphasis placed on
stability and continuity by defining the roles and responsibilities of employees
and measuring outcomes through documentation – a.k.a. the development of the “professional
bureaucracy”. Fredrick Taylor, Henri
Fayol and Max Weber are the major theorists of this period.
1926-1950: Human Relations Model – characterized by an emphasis
on employee participation, consensus building and conflict resolution to
produce a high level of employee involvement, cohesion, collaboration and
morale. Elton Mayo is the major theorist
of this period.
1951 – 1973: Open Systems Model – characterized by an emphasis on adaptation,
creative problem solving and change management.
Continual adaptation and innovation are keys to acquiring and
maintaining external resources for maximum organizational flexibility to
address the uncertainty produced by constant change. Henry Mintzberg is the major theorist of this
period.
1976-1999/2000-Present
– from “Both-and assumptions” to the birth of the Competing Values Frameworks
(CVF) to address complexity, ambiguity and paradox in management – characterized by the
acknowledgement that problems of uncertainty are often multi-layered and marked
by underlying tensions which are at odds but require multiple managerial lens
which integrate the four managerial models to identify and address organizational
issues effectively in an evolving change process. CVF has four action imperatives: Collaborate,
Control, Compete and Create.
The
position of a manager is multi-faceted in any organization. In fact, it is a paradox by design. As the requirements attributed to the
position evolve different models emerged as attempts to provide a general
direction for problems to be addressed by managers. This is a common function in any
process. The evolution of the managers’
position within the organization itself has often dictated the most effective
model to be utilized within a particular environment. (i.e., knowledge workers
of the 21st century are expected to be posses an entrepreneurial
nature due to the high level of ambiguity and innovation required in today’s
workforce, however these same traits would cause those workers to be cultural
outcasts in the workforce of the 1900’s with an emphasis on efficient
production through scientific management techniques). Managing projects and people with finite
resources of an organization that ownership, equity and residual assets cannot
be allocated or transferred for the benefit of individuals or groups equal to
the labor, time and/or resources invested to accomplish or ascertain agency
goals is an accepted fact associated with the position. However, the concept we should gather from
the Competing Values Framework is the element of change, how it is defined
(internally or externally), how it is addressed (rapidly or incrementally), how
it is implemented (initiated on the individual and/or organizational level) and
what value is created from that change (short-term or long-term). This is the conceptual reality posed by the competing
values approach.
Competing Values
Competency Summary
Collaborate – Creating and
Sustaining Commitment and Cohesion
A)
Understanding
Self and Others – 6.4
B)
Communicating
Honestly and Effectively – 6.2
C)
Mentoring
and Developing Others – 6.6
D)
Managing
Groups and Leading Teams -6.4
E)
Managing
and Encouraging Constructive Conflict – 5.2
In the
competing values framework assessment my strongest action imperative was
collaborate. Within this imperative, mentoring
and developing others at (6.6) was my strongest subset followed by
understanding self and others along with managing groups and leading teams
(both tied at 6.4) for second. I totally
agree with these assessments because they are in line with what I consider the
most enjoyable aspect of my job – working with others to bring out the best in
them. The employees of any organization
are potentially the biggest assets or liabilities that any organization
has. Organizations rise and fall
depending on their employees perform. My
focus has always been to make sure the each employee I manage maximizes their
abilities and skills for personal development in every task assigned to
them. I frame their tasks in terms of
leadership development through the mastery of individual skills.
Compete – Improving Productivity
and Increasing Profitability
A)
Developing
and Communicating a Vision – 3.0
B)
Setting
Goals and Objectives – 5.2
C)
Motivating
Self and Others – 5.0
D)
Designing
and Organizing – 3.0
E)
Managing
Situations and Driving Results – 5.2
In the competing values framework
assessment my weakest action imperative was compete – improving productivity
and increasing profitability. Developing
and communicating a vision and designing and organizing were tied with the
lowest scores of (3.0). Managing
situations and driving results and setting goals and objectives were the
highest in this category with (5.2).
Honestly, my perception of my own skill set was the total opposite of my
scores. I have always viewed myself as a
manager with excellent vision and communication skills however after a period
of reflection, I realize most of the vision plans I have executed were not my
own but a higher level of management or from previous administrations. I was given the opportunity to “buy-in” to
the vision, not develop one of my own.
Purely a “cookie cutter” approach to management.
During
the course of taking the assessment, did you discover any contradictions
between how you view yourself as a manager, or a potential manager, and how the
CVF assessment rated you as it relates to your managerial strengths and
weaknesses? Do you consider the CVF as a
“potentially superior approach” to the addressing the assumptions created by
your own “psychic prisons” of successful managerial techniques and problem
solving skills? Why or why not? In your opinion, are there any problems
and/or issues as a public manager that the CVF would be ill suited to address?
(i.e., unfunded mandates or political initiatives which have been
programmatically phased out or merged with another program) Do believe your analysis would have been
different using CVF in any of the previous case studies we have examined this
semester?
Consistent with how I view myself as a manager, my strongest action imperative was collaboration. Perhaps this is in part due to my legal training and experience, where the goal is to understand all sides of an issue, and the personalities, internal and external pressures, and viewpoints being brought to bear before making a decision. I scored highest in understanding self and others and communicating honestly and effectively. These results are not surprising for another reason. Having been born with cerebral palsy, I have never been afraid to ask for help. Managing groups and leading teams is something I really have not had much exposure to until my current position, where although I may not be the leader per se, I am a leader in terms of focusing our efforts toward the common goal.
ReplyDeleteI am also not surprised that my second highest imperative was create. This is also consistent with my background in that I have experience with ethically using power, persuasive communication and negotiation.
The process was very helpful in allowing me to enlighten the lack of vision, and now I have concrete skills that I can work on improving as the semester goes forward.
Law school tends to place attendees in a box and the value placed on precedent acts somewhat to discourage creative thinking. It’s almost as if I now must retrain my brain to have the legal and nonlegal mind operating concurrently.
Collaborate – Creating and Sustaining Commitment and Cohesion
A) Understanding Self and Others – 7
B) Communicating Honestly and Effectively – 7
C) Mentoring and Developing Others – 6.4
D) Managing Groups and Leading Teams -6.4
E) Managing and Encouraging Constructive Conflict – 6
Your comment about law school was/is very interesting. You stated: " I now must retrain my brain to have the legal and nonlegal mind operating concurrently."
DeleteI think this is exactly the system that prevails in America - one in which we must become a part of the matrix machine and phase out one brain for the other. The better we do this and fit the mode or operation the greater one is viewed in a specific organization, industry, or government system. If we can balance the two and hold true to our values, worth and identity, this, i believe is being a Master Leader. Anything else is a person being lead by a master leader. I think Master leaders know their goals and agendas and carry them out effectively and successfully. I also think a Master leader knows when to listen to others and welcome suggestions and other directions when needed.
I agree with you, Letrice. The question is, how do we change the culture so as to add more value to the independence and diversity of thought?
DeleteDavid as a public/private sector manager we are often called upon to complete projects and/or initiatives. By implementing processes that encourage "outside the box" problem solving during our projects, we can become a catalyst for the diversity and independence we are seeking. In essence, we must become what desire in order to change the culture. By doing this, we add value to the culture of our workplace.
DeleteAlso, remember culture is learned ... not instilled or created.
DeleteWhen completing this surevey, I found my results to be very similar in all categories. Even though the numbers were not very high for any one section, I di have a consistancy across the board. I did have the highest values for the Collaborate, which does dall in line with how I feel I manage employees. The highest score within that group was for "Understanding Self and Other." This is how I have always managed and feel that I do take the time to understand where I am coming from as well as the employees. I take that all into consideration before I approach any scenario. In a foreman role, I was constantly interactibe with my crew, managing them and providing constructive support. I always try to communicate honestly with the crew and keep them up to date on important information.
ReplyDeleteI was also close in the Create category as well. I am currently in a position where I am able to bring ideas to the table that I would have not previosly been allowed. I have worked for a few municipalities and bring experience from many different vantage points to create new ideas. I have always been against the idea of "This is the way it has always been done" mentality. I believe in pushing employees to think outside the box and find solutions that may not be right in front of them. This is extremely harder in an aging work force who struggle with change. I do however feel that I have an ability to slowly implement these changes so they are not as hard to take on.
I did score very low in the Compete section and I think that is somewhat true. I do not completely agree with the results but do understand why I came to these numbers. Especially in the are of motivating employees. In my case, I work directly with union employees. I amnot saying you cannot motivate union employees, I am just saying that it is a bit tougher. The contract they have in place guarantees them raise and there are no possibilities for merit increase. These employees tend to just get by because they understand that they will automatically get a raise.
I think that this type of survey is great for self-assessment, but only works as well as the honesty of the person filling it out. This type of survey would work great in a 360 review process where co-workers, supervisors, and direct reports all filled these out for you, so you can get a good understanding of how others see you.
I was pleased with the results from this survey and did not see anything that was too far off from where I expected myself to be. I think that I might be borrowing this and use on some of my supervisors to see how they rate themselves.
I can relate to your experience regarding the 'compete' section, as I had some of the same results in both that section and the 'create' section. Much like your experience with union employees, the fact that my workplace is a part of the federal government sector means that the environment within which I work makes some of these things very challenging as they are not really a component of the organizational culture. I'm hoping that I can find other avenues to develop these competencies as my career progresses.
DeleteEric,
DeleteI quite agree with you that the survey though great for self assessment, can be misleading if one does not do an honest job with it. It is also true that it is self-biased in that you only get your own perspective of how well or poorly you perform and this often differs with the ratings of your peers, subordinates and superiors. The 360-degree or multi source feedback would surely make a good complement to the survey as it includes other stakeholder ratings and opinions.
Evelina i concur.
DeleteOne most certainly would have to be honest. I think people with inflated ego, hard driven may miss some things which could help him/her improve and balance their skills but i also think a manager who may be struggling with self concepts may not see their own power and potential would score their self lower. Still, this is a decent self evaluation tool.
Another thought is a deep one that sociologist and psychologist have discussed for decades. It is the self concept and masks we wear. This has to do with how we see our selves, how others see us, how we think others view us and who we really are inside.
Together with an assessment as this the Myers Briggs personality test can be a great tool; however, once again a person has to be honest with his or herself in order to gain the best responds and then use this reflection as a way to self monitor and become aware of certain things about ones self. Also this tool can help people to accept the things they cannot change and gain courage to change the things they can.
Finally, before taking any evaluations one has to decide why he or she is taking the evaluation - for a class grade, to appease the boss, to appease the group or a spouse?
And how will he/she then utilize what has been learn if anything.
Quinn offers another survey that your employees can take to assess you as manager/leader.
DeleteGoing into this survey, i expected to get very low scores due to limited management experience. I completed the survey based on my experiences with project management for construction projects and other projects I lead in the organization. I do not have any direct reports, but I do have engineering techs who work under on projects.
ReplyDeleteMy highest scoring category was Control. This did not surprise me. I deal with some complex projects that sometimes cost millions of dollars. I need to be on top of things and keep the projects under control.
My lowest category was Compete. It did not surprise me that this was the lowest. My role as a non-supervisor was seen in this category. I have not had an opportunity to part take in many of the questions. There were a lot of 1s in my results.
I will keep this survey to use again in the future. Eventually, I would like to be in a supervisory role. The survey is effective at showing you strengths and weaknesses and how they relate to one another.
As Eric stated, this is also a good tool to use to see how you are viewed by others. A potential reason to not rely on the results from others is they only are exposed to you on a limited basis. They may not be able to accuratelt apply numbers. It will still give you a general idea of where you stand though.
How have you used these competencies in your work to this point? Having read of the different competencies, would you say you more heavily rely on one than all others, or do you find yourself switching back and forth as situations arise?
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteI think that most people tend to switch back and forth as situations arise. I think that a good manager is able to step back from a situation and assess it before making any type of decision. The ability to see what is going on and move forward from there is one of the competencies, but I think is a major necessity it any great manager. Then from there you can determine the best action plan that fits your needs. I think people tend to always lean more to one side that they feel comfortable with. If they have a history of success with one way, they will tend to try it again.
After completing the survey, I was not surprised but also not necessarily pleased to see that my managerial competencies are developing me into a 'good bureaucrat.' By far, my highest scores overall were in the 'control' and 'collaborate' quadrants of the competing values framework, which was not surprising as these are the models that control the majority of what a federal agency does, particularly on the field office level. Within the control quadrant, my highest-scoring competencies were 'encouraging and enabling compliance' and 'organizing information flows.' I suppose this makes sense, as these areas are involved in most functions performed by my office. Within the collaborate quadrant, my highest-scoring competencies were 'communicating honestly and effectively' and 'managing groups and leading teams.' This was also logical, as working with colleagues in other functional specialties (such as engineering or finance) is necessary to work with housing authorities effectively across all program areas. Additionally, I was able to draw upon some experience with more innovative projects at agency headquarters that have developed competencies in the create quadrant, though these scores were, on average, not nearly as high as collaboration and control. My scores in the compete quadrant were low relative to the others, as this is not an area that tends to affect federal government employees as readily as it might affect employees in other sectors.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned, the results were not surprising and I would imagine that they indicate that I am continuing to develop in a way that will enable me to perform well within my organization. That said, I would like to be able to diversify my competencies a bit in order to be better suited to use all aspects of the competing values framework in my work. The survey was a valuable tool to identify areas to focus on as my career path continues to develop.
My predictions were also not very far from my survey results as I already had an idea of which competencies I had and which ones I lacked to some extent. Generally, I scored 5.5 on Collaborate-focused competencies, 4.6 on Create-focused competencies, 4.4 on Compete- focused competencies and the lowest score was the control-focused competencies with a score of 4.3.
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising that I scored higher in the collaborate and create-focused competencies because both my previous job as a school teacher and my current job as a University Administrator is focused on the Human Relations(HR) and Open Systems Models which encompass both competencies. Moreover, my overall best score was in the understanding self and others competency with a score of 6.4. This further consolidates my public relations competency which is a core component of my jobs as a teacher, a University Faculty Officer and a Personal Assistant to the University President. My current job requires that procedures, policies and formal guidelines are vividly interpreted and understood by both staff, students and the university community and in doing so, one needs great communication skills to effectively interpret policies to all the parties involved.
With this professional background, my low scores on compete and control -based competencies are not also surprising. Compete-based competency can be categorized in the Rational Goal Model which places particular emphasis on productivity and profits, thus the Dollar symbol. such competencies include developing and communicating a vision, which I have not yet been exposed to in my professional experience. The control-based competencies on the other hand include project planning and management which I have not also been engaged in professionally and that explains the low scores. Interestingly however, I realised a higher score in organizing information flow competencies (5.8) which is control based but incorporates some aspects of public relations such as deciding when a face-to-face interaction is more appropriate than an email, phone call, or paper memo. I also scored high on time management which is another control-based competencies.
Although our competency strengths were different, I can relate to what you are saying regarding your current position and the strengths it is positioning you to develop, as well as the competencies that don't really come into play due to the nature of the environment. I found the same thing, though I was stronger on collaborate and control (as a federal employee, this was not too surprising) and weaker on create and compete. I'm wondering about the best method to develop the competencies that are not part of the organizational culture that we move within. I'd like to develop myself in all four areas, but my work environment isn't particularly well suited for some of them.
DeleteFirst of all in evaluations, i hardly ever allow/give myself the highest number for performance particularly on a first time evaluation. I generally like to take a test like this and come back to it within 6-12 months to benchmark and see if there are any personal changes. In this questionnaire, in many cases where i believe i demonstrate a 7(almost Always) i gave a score of 6 unless i was very positive about the action then i gave myself a 7.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I know i am at a certain time and place in my life when external things impact my leadership skills greatly which do not allow me to demonstrate my most effective managerial efforts and competency; therefore i had to take into consideration that this reflection can and will change in the next 6-12 months which i plan to revisit. I would like to see a clear view of my potential.
With all that said, in viewing the Competing Values Competency Summary i noticed that over all the numbers seemed to be the same. After entering the numbers i decided to add the particular categories in order to see which score was the highest. I felt this would allow me to see my strengths best. This was the conclusion after adding the five areas of each section:
Collaborate – Creating and Sustaining Commitment and Cohesion - 29
Create -Promoting Change and Encouraging Adaptability - 28.6
Control- establishing and Maintaining Stability and Continuity - 26.2
Compete – Improving Productivity and Increasing Profitability - 27-6
I think this actually is correct.
As i read through the questions i laughed because i know most of my weak areas, one being organizing and time management, and i felt this was a great time to examine all my areas and create a sound workable strategy to become a master manager.
I think this is actually a great time for me to sharping up to become a top productive manager of my professional and personal life.
IN the Seven Habits of Highly Effective people Steven Covey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People) suggests that we take time to "sharpen the saw" rather than just keep working hard with a dull blade. This is the time for me to develop skills to worker smarter AND harder.
In my opinion, there are problems and/or issues as a public manager that the CVF would be ill suited to address? It can not fully measure unfunded mandates or political initiatives which have been programmatically phased out or merged with another program as you asked. I think mandates can cause people to perform in a certain manner often against ones better judgment and against ones believes, values and personality. Some people do what they need to just to get by, get over or get along when inside their charter is either being testes, vexes and transformed into something or some one they were not. This is most certainly "programmed" behavior due to bureaucratizes and political initiatives.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the NASA case study an example of extreme reliance on the compete value, to the extent that they wanted to get things done to prove their worth? This strikes me as a perfect example of acting against better judgment because of the need to stay relevant, as Letrice mentions.
ReplyDeleteNASA had a desire to stay relevant however no process was implemented for the change that was necessary. Using the CVF would have been beneficial in this case study but I do not believe the solutions discovered would have been put in place to improve the agency culture and add value.
DeleteGrade: 20 Points
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion! As with a previous group, I want to ask you a question. Are some of you creating a psychic prison in your workplace? I see some of you raising circumstance (politics, org. structure, mandates) as barriers to certain managerial competencies. But, I want to caution you and suggest that you probably have more agency than you think. Work to be great where you are and develop each of these competencies so that you can employ them when they are needed.