MANAGEMENT

The Human Side of Management: Advanced Leadership Trends
by Paul 0. Radde

The new millenium manager has two "human side" issues to confront:
      1) His/her basic belief about human nature - people are trustworthy or not trustworthy;
      2) His/her basic level of self-acceptance.

The view we hold of human nature may well determine our relevance or obsolescence as managers in the 21st century. Developing human capital viewing the employee as a whole person, not simply as a work unit. The predominant management philosophy taking hold today. And the more positive our image of the average employee, the more likely we are to be effective leaders.

Yet there is a further challenge that begins within each one of us. It is our basic acceptance of ourselves - the core condition from which true leadership capabilities develop.

Historical Stages of Management
Management has developed along a three-stage path. Its first structure was strictly hierarchical. Early industry was structured along primarily military guidelines. Factories functioned with a high degree of centralized control and expected only basic robotic responses from workers. In fact, at that time, the church, the military, and industry saw little value in individual initiative.

Developing human capital - viewing the
employee as a whole person, not simply a
work unit - is the predominant management
philosophy taking hold today.

The church was out to save souls. It felt it had the correct formula to do so. All that was needed was adherence from the faithful. The military wanted to defend property and save lives. Central command knew and directed the "right moves." What was required was unerring execution in the field. And textile mills wanted everyone in place continually and on time so that production would go forward with every bobbin rolling. The basic perception of the faithful, the soldiers, and the employees was of a minion who would accept and fulfill orders with a minimum of individual discretion.

The historical circumstances that made this system workable included a lower level of education for the masses, and a sense among them of dependence on those who "knew better." If management spoke, there was willing acceptance from followers.

Transitional Management.
Post World War II management began to offer some opportunities for individual initiative among employees, albeit grudgingly and often awkwardly. This marked a transitional stage. The military command experience was a massive and general role model during this era, and influenced peacetime managers. Many had had their first taste of formal management in the service. Often, they recreated battlefield urgency and crisis management to rekindle the excitement of their earlier commands. However, without the life-threatening consequences of attack from an enemy, continuing managerial effectiveness required loyalty and general acceptance from employees, or it engendered subtle resistance.

Transitional managers meant well in attempting to bring their experience from management training into the organization. They truly wanted to become more "Theory Y" to "manage by objectives," to be more participative. In most causes their commitment to change outran their understanding and skill to implement participative management. So, in offering employees the possibility of taking more initiative and having more decision-making authority, many managers only appeared to dupe employees, and created less receptivity the next time participative management was proposed.

Some managers, again well-meaning, attempted to provide a high level of inclusion and affiliation for their employees. Their door was always open, and for a time, subordinates felt warm and fuzzy. However, these "Godfather" managers neglected to establish a minimal structure upon which subordinates could gauge their performance and outcomes. This led to great dependence on the manager, who held sometimes whimsical standards

The establishment of a psychologically
"safe" climate is essential in order to glean
maximum creativity, communication and
productivity.

for performance evaluation and promotion, thereby engendering tremendous infighting among immediate subordinates. The Godfather manager, meanwhile, seldom was confronted, for he was such a "good guy" and meant well. But, he took care of Maslow's third level need for affiliation without providing the more basic second level need for structure, continuity and security.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5