Managerial archetypes
I’m making slow but steady progress on the ‘Slacker@Work’ book. Matt Wagner has been invaluable in helping me clarify my thinking in a bunch of ways. One thing that’s come up is the idea of categories of managers. I’m aware of two: micromanagers and undermanagers. Micromanagers are well known–they want to do your work for you. Undermanagers are less threatening, but equally dangerous–they think they’re "empowering" you by providing no guidance or structure.
What other managerial types have you worked for, dysfunctional and otherwise, and how have you counteracted them, worked around them or otherwise accomodated their idiosyncrasies?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: creativity, management, writing
25 opinions for Managerial archetypes
Shari Horne
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:12 am
Let’s not forget the hybrid under-micro manager. Most of the time, he (and I use this only from my own miserable experience) provides no structure whatsoever. And then something gets into the water and suddenly he’s the micromananger. For about a week. Definitely cyclical. I call it bipolar boss.
Bren
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:40 am
Nice one, Shari!
Ara Pehlivanian
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:44 am
I’ve worked for the not-so-manager. He’s never there, and doesn’t know what you’re doing but happens to be your manager in the org-chart.
Bren
Nov 16, 2005 at 8:48 am
“Not-so-manager” I love it, thanks Ara!
Sol Betancourt
Nov 16, 2005 at 9:46 am
I’ve worked for a variety of large corporations, and all of them, including my current employer, have leaders/managers that tend to fit into a few categories. In corporate/political environments, my theory is that there are three kinds of managers, and two types of leaders. (overlapping allowed)
First, in descending order of excellence: They, We, and I managers.
“They” managers always upsell their people, talk about their teams accomplishments, and regularly deflect exposure opportunities and praise onto their team-members. They realize that showing off their people is a way both to showcase their soft skills, and a way to develop a highly loyal cadre of employees who they can consistently get excellent performances from. See also “Mirror-window bosses” (point at the mirror when mistakes happen, but point through the window when credit is due)
“I” managers are the classic kiss-up-kick-down manager, or even just someone who is very insecure about the organization’s opinion of their execution abilities. They attract credit like a magnet, but when blame is handed out, they’re nowhere to be found. A good example is the boss who will say things like “i’ll get that done for you” or “here’s what I did”…when the project clearly was or will be worked on by someone else. The most flagrant examples of this are bosses who, when larger team meetings are happening, will tell their boss they they will accomplish a task, and then once “big boss” signs off, will immediately tell a subordinate to take care of it.
“We” managers are something of a hybrid. They say things like “here’s what we did” or “Here’s the plan that we came up with” when the people who did the work or the planning are sitting in the room (unacknowledged). “We” managers are sometimes former “I” managers who have been coached about giving credit to their teams, but still can’t quite bring themselves to fully deflect credit to another individual. “We” managers may also be former “they” managers who have been backstabbed by an employee, or have been informed that they are viewed as a low-producer who happens to lead strong teams. They leverage the tendency to credit the speaker for the accomplishments, while carefully not overstepping by taking sole credit for success. Slippery and ininspiring.
Second, two types of leaders: Advocates and Fence-sitters. This distinction is quite simple.
Advocates will make quick decisions, support those decsisions, and go to battle for their people. They will be passionate about their team’s ideas, and will work the system to make sure the team gets credit, as well as to launch their people into better/bigger jobs. When corporate starts playing blame games, or people start sniping, they will defend their teammembers, and fight back. They are respected for their passion, and are known for developing people. They tend to be known as change agents and proactive solution-finders.
Fencesitters dont like making decisions, and enjoy saying much without saying anything. Perhaps they were burned in the past for decisions they have made, and are now gunshy. When their teammembers are targeted, they tend to give lackluster defenses, or acquiesce rapidly. They fail to realize that non-committal is often seen as weakness, and often become known for NOT launching their people, or stifling the advancement of their subordinates out of insecurity or jealousy. Fencesitters are often known for being exceptionally critical of the organization, and yet being content not to drive change.
those are my theories…would love feedback or confirmation from what folks have observed in their own worlds.
Bren
Nov 16, 2005 at 10:04 am
Sol, that’s a fantastic overview! I particularly love the “mirror/window” model–hadn’t heard that before.
I also love the mix ‘n match nature of the three managerial types and two leadership types. Lots of food for thought, thank you…
laurence haughton
Nov 16, 2005 at 3:05 pm
I didn’t work for him exactly but there was a guy I used to call “The Vice-President in Charge of Being Concerned.”
He was always worried that whatever I (or any other front line manager) was doing wasn’t going to work. He’d furrow his brow, shake his head, and ask what if… but he never had a useful suggestion or an concrete idea about what to do, what would work. And heaven forbid anyone suggest he actually pitch in and give us any of his precious ability. He’d express his concerns, go to lunch, and then after he’d ask “what have you done about my concerns?”
He was the company hand-wringer and second-guesser who never made a mistake ’cause he never made a decision.
Does that count?
Bren
Nov 16, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Oh, *that* guy… :-)
Excellent example, thanks Laurence! Reminds me of those folks who always “play devil’s advocate” mainly because, you know, they ARE the devil’s advocate. The folks who confuse “critical thinking” with “being critical.”
Sol Betancourt
Nov 16, 2005 at 7:40 pm
laurence, LOL, you hit the nail right on the head. the people who maintain “top three concerns” lists as opposed to “top three solutions” lists.
steve
Nov 16, 2005 at 9:28 pm
A slight variation on the above observations is the Procrastinator by Design. This boss conciously procrastinates on making important decisions, thinking they’ll go away. Unforunately for them, the problems are generally compounded, and the only thing that goes away are his/her employees.
Another is the Exceptional Ruler. Everyone has to follow all of the rules in the handbook - be at work on time, leave work late, file all reports timely - except themselves. they can leave early on Fridays, come in late whenever the breeze blows West and generally be late on everything that will likely have an impact on your ability to do your job.
Lastly is the old cliche, but my personal favorite: The Seagull Boss. Flies in thinking they will save the day, proceeds to ruflles feather and shit on everything and everyone, and then flies out without any hint of responsibility for what just happened. Yes, it’s a cliche, but I had fun typing it. :)
einalem
Nov 17, 2005 at 7:24 am
There’s so many I have come across - where do I start? I’ll quantify this by saying I work in the consulting engineering field. Many of my ‘managers’ have been excellent engineers and thus promoted. Never trained in management and guess what? Not so good managers.
#1 saves all feedback (especially negative) until performance review day - months after anything could have been done to fix the problem, which has since been festering in his head
#2 believes in democracy and managing by committee - no decisions EVER made, but plenty of money and time spent on meetings. Looks incredibly productive without actually doing anything
#3 excellent engineer employed to be a manager of technical excellence, gets sidelined into project work again, abandons technical excellence whilst retaining title and status, without delegating any tasks
#4 a particular favourite believed that his attendance at any training was a sign of weakness on his part so never did any training
#5 complete sociopath who is your best friend and drinking buddy one minute and stabs you in the back publically the next
The sad and scary thing is that all these guys were fantastic engineers. The culture generally rewards performance based on numbers, with very little consideration to ‘people’ issues, and those minor things like training, strategy, marketing, etc. i.e. the useful stuff that could give them a competitive edge over all the others thinking the same way in this industry. I’m sure my industry is not alone.
In summary I’d class this group as ‘Managers who wish they weren’t’ or ‘promoted to the level of their own incompetence’.
Bren
Nov 17, 2005 at 7:51 am
Thanks, einalem. Good classification–sounds a lot like a kind of “Peter Principle” group, eh?
Bryan
Nov 17, 2005 at 8:52 am
When I had a real job, I “thoroughly enjoyed” the learning experience from not one, not two, but three ’semi-functional alcoholic’ managers.
One was actually very good. Another was the top salesman in the company, and schizophrenic. The third was a complete pickled idiot. And I was used by the last two for their perceived political gain.
How’s that for a first job out of college?
abby
Nov 17, 2005 at 3:16 pm
there’s always “lack of boundaries manager”. the personal comes to work, the professional goes home and there’s no line in between…
eventually the divorce comes to the office along with the girlfriend and coke habit that broke up the marriage and the expense account gets spent on strip clubs with the salesguys who’ve been coerced into hanging out with the now lonely manager…
the mental illness and miscarriage and boyfriend in the army dominate the staff meeting and the staff winds up getting phone calls from the manager at 10pm on a Saturday that something crucial is due Monday 8am…
i know that work is very personal, but we should probably try to manage work at work and home at home and know where the line between each is as much as possible.
Trevor
Nov 17, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Hey:
I like your blog, really hits home with me. I would like to put a link to your book on my blog Evil Office Politics. Check my blog out and let me know if thats a go.
Again, great blog.
T.
Bren
Nov 17, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Abby: Whoa. And amen.
Trevor: Get as linky as you like, brother!
Andy Lee
Nov 17, 2005 at 9:38 pm
I didn’t work for him exactly but there was a guy I used to call “The Vice-President in Charge of Being Concerned.”
He was always worried that whatever I (or any other front line manager) was doing wasn’t going to work.
If you know about Edward de Bono’s Six Hats, this guy is a classic Black Hat thinker. He needs to explore the other five hats.
Chad
Nov 18, 2005 at 11:17 am
Hmmm, I guess I have a little ‘undermanager’ and ‘no-so-manager’ in me, but what’s a boy to do? I’m actually a little more of a “I’m-one-of-you” manager. I still do the same tasks, work the same projects, but also manage the projects, processes, and people themselves. I can do their job, and they could probably do mine…and I don’t hide from this.
Enough about me - There are some good posts and ideas here about archetypes of dysfuntional managers, but what about the good ones? What is just right? I realize that your book may be about slacking, albeit your definition, but it seems like there must be at least one positive archetype worth mentioning…
Bren
Nov 18, 2005 at 11:36 am
Chad: yeah, these all hit a little too close to home for me too. :-)
I hear what you’re saying about wanting to know ‘what a good one looks like.’ It’s much easier to identify the bad ones, I think. From my perspective, good managers are typified by balance, restraint and mindfulness. Doesn’t mean they don’t rage now and then, just means that the rage is probably for a purpose and not because they can’t help themselves.
Personally, I’m the farthest thing from a micromanager (I, too, tend toward undermanagement), but the need occasionally arises where I must engage in micromanagement-like behavior. Not “coaching” but actually micromanaging. Fortunately it never lasts.
Geof F. Morris
Nov 18, 2005 at 12:15 pm
You may want to consider Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid [search for Managerial Grid Model on Wikipedia]. My professional and personal study has found that it’s a good stable basis upon which to build—each type can be good in specific situations, and you find various personalities in each grid spot.
laurence haughton
Nov 18, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Elliot Jaques (author of Requisite Organization) defined a manager as the person who is responsible for the output of others and for sustaining a team capable of producing those outputs.
Therefore the proof, the goodness of a manager is, like with pudding, in the eating. Is your team or teams getting what’s expected done and are you sustaining a team or teams that will continue to get what’s expected done? If so you are good.
There’s no one good archtype… it depends on the team and the expected outputs.
But Bren’s distinction matches my research. Balance. Being able to find the line between enough and too much of any management method. Micromanaging has its place… so does letting people fail. Great leaders were known to flog on occasion and still be loved. Balance, appropriateness, selflessness, competency, maturity… those are the qualities of good managers.
Michael McLaughlin
Nov 22, 2005 at 8:59 am
There’s also the morphing manager. That’s the person who changes their approach to managing given the level of stress. So, the laid-back manager becomes the totally hands-on, in your face manager when the situation gets critical. There’s probably dozens of these hybrid managers who show completely different behaviors and use different practices given the situation. They’re among the most unpredictable.
Anna Maria
Dec 1, 2005 at 8:41 pm
How about the “Catch Me if You Can” boss. This is the one who got the job strictly on the merits of excellent schmoozing skills. She doesn’t know how to do one single thing, has to ask everyone else how to do even the simplest task, and has worked the job for 5 years. She can’t spell any word with more than three letters, can barely read, and has an IQ of 3. This boss is a chronic liar, covering her butt by placing blame on others. She also lights little “fires” around the store as to take the focus off her own inabilities. This boss is a fake in a huge way. Getting high paying positions by being good at lying.
( Before she was let go, it was found (to no one’s amazement) she lied about everything on her application, including her previous experience, job position and education! )
Jason Bourdon
Dec 31, 2005 at 7:26 pm
In my travels and varies vocations I have run across several different types of managers. Alot of the aforementioned archetypes hit it right on the head. However, there is a type that has been prevalent in my life that I would remiss if I didnt not metion it myself. I like to call it the “Segue” style of management.
This style entails taking the orders from higher management and giving them directly to the employees. There are no decisions to be made, no pressing issues to tackle, no accountiblity and no regard to the consequences of the orders. Just passing the orders down the chain of command. This style is very useful for companies that do not put too much value on personel. It also provides a substantial buffer between upper management and employees. The phrase “This order comes from upstairs, there’s nothing I can do about it” is widely used with this style of management.
Just this month, I bore witness to the best example of this management style I’ve seen so far and I’d like to share it with you. Almost all of the employees of the company I work for work an 8 - 5, Monday through Friday schedule.(It is important to note that I am not one of these employees.) Because of this fact, the company has deemed that all holidays that fall on the weekend will be recognized on either the Friday before or the Monday after the holiday. Because of this rule, and the “Segue” style of management, I worked an eight hour shift on Christmas day this year.
And (as if that’s not enough) the kicker is that currently it’s 10:00pm on New Years Eve and I am at work. It is also true that I will be working until midnight tonight and coming in tomorrow(Sunday). Meaning that most of the festivities will be missed by me (Yeah for Sugue!). The only peace I find in this is that I’ve spent the last few minutes posting to this great site. That, and I pee in my bosses coffee. Just Kidding :)
Julie Gowan
May 31, 2006 at 3:24 pm
just trying to track down jason bourdon