Do we really need managers?

[Putthatbookdown]

Given all the maltreatment we read about here and elsewhere it seems that management or at least poor management is a common factor
Come on managers justify yourselves

When I was a line manager part of my job was to ensure not just that individual pieces of work were completed but also that overall targets were met for the team. Sometimes this would mean that I would have to change the way that a team member was performing so that a broader target was achieved. The individual would have preferred to do things in a particular way but that wouldnt have met the broader target.

I was also responsible for the career development of my team. Ensuring that training was prioritised and that additional responsibility was given/taken as appropriate. It was also my responsibility to watch for potential problems and deal with them.

Can I keep my managerial status now please?

What would you suggest instead of managers?

Depends on the manager. Sadly, I have encountered more shit ones than inspiring ones.

I'm a great manager!

Enough said

Well, I'm a manager, so I would say yes, wouldn't I?

I genuinely think we are needed, in lots of different ways, but I know there are some crap ones out there. I see my main role as being the one who can step back a bit from the day to day doing, and look at the bigger picture. For the most part, I can trust staff to ensure that the necessary jobs get done toddy, but it's my job to look ahead and ensure that we all still have jobs to do a year or so from now. We need to move with the times, spot trends, anticipate threats, grasp opportunities etc. When you're busy doing the doing, it can be difficult to keep an eye on all that stuff as well. the manager is there to set the direction and to lead the way. They're also there to make decisions when people can't agree on the right way forward.

The same thing applies to staff development, as mentioned by a previous poster. It's my job to identify development opportunities for people that they might not see for themselves - for their own career development and for the overall skill set of the team.

It's my job to ensure that all staff provide a consistent level of service to our clients, so that the client knows that he/she can expect the same standards regardless of who they deal with. In the same way, I have to ensure that staff follow consistent systems and procedures - left to their own devices, we'd probably have a dozen different systems on the go, and that leads to mistakes, confusion among staff and a poor service for customers. I know this to be the case, as it's exactly what I inherited when I first took on my current job.

Then there are the people who take the piss, or those who just can't do what is required of them. I've had to deal with a few of each, and it can be hugely time consuming. However, if stuff like this wasn't dealt with, it would be hugely unfair on the hardworking staff who would end up picking up the slack. Dealing with underperformance is probably the shittiest bit about being a manager, but someone has to do it.

Likewise, someone has to be around to take responsibility for the stuff that might go wrong. The budget won't manage itself, for example, and if nobody had ultimate responsibility, it could easily spiral out of control. The buck has to stop somewhere, and usually that's the manager.

I think a lot of the problem is that people often don't see what their managers do, and so they assume they do nothing. I've been guilty of thinking this myself at times in the past, but I know that I add real value in my workplace, and I can see the value that others are adding too. For the most part, I think my staff would agree with this - but I'm sure the woman I sacked for incompetence wouldn't, and neither would the member of staff that I'm currently taking through disciplinary. So I guess it all depends on perspective.

A good worker can be a crap manager and vice versa.

The problem you have is promoting people from 'doing' to 'managing' and expecting them to be automatically good at it. Why? They have no experience in managing, so why should they all take to it? That's the problem.

Back in the 60's I think it was, a chap called Lazlo (sp?) set forth a theory (the Peter Principle) that everyone gets promoted to their 'point of incompetence' - ie if you are good you keep getting promoted until you stop becoming good, then you stay there, in the very job you are no good at, until you retire), and I have seen it everywhere - especially at Board level.

Solution? Training, trial runs at mgmt, support, investment. Managing properly is very, very difficult.

A camel is a horse designed by a comittee.

Or....we need an overall person in charge.

The Peter Principle first appeared in 1969 in a book of that name by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull. I think StillSquiffy is thinking of Maslow who came up with a theory of motivation based on a hierarchy of needs - something that has come up on every management training course I have ever been on.

Its such a sully question im almost tempted not to answer.I run a charitable organisation. Without managers, we would not exist as when the funds ran out there would be no more money because no-one would have raised any or written any bids.
Without managers who would motivate and monitor the staff or monitor the work? Who would ensure equality at work? And who would the staff bash if they weren't manager-bashing?

I am more interested in exploring the skills sets of "managers" Lots of people have this title but in fact there is a huge variation between them : someone who is called a manager in a call centre for example is little more than a supervisor monitoring calls, breaks targets etc whereas a shop manager may be far more autonomous and carry great responsibilities depending on the size of the place Generally the more autonomous the role the greater the skills needed
Basically I came back to the uk from a very successful country and realised that it was bad management that has let us down: the workers here do far more hours as well I do not wish to rubbish managers: quite the opposite as there are good and bad but from what I have seen the organisations with the bad ones would have been better off without them in all honesty.
My defintion of a Manager would be someone who makes decisions and it is hard yes very difficult When you have to intervene you can never win as someone will always complain but that is what you are paid for
In my field they all now have to get the experience and then do a very tough course and this approach has really paid off as they get both theory and practice