The Common Denominator
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
The Common Denominator For all their differences, the four mismanagerial styles, (P---), (-A--), (--E-), and (---I), have one trait in common: They are all inflexible stereotypes. The managers who exhibit these styles have uni-dimensional, one-track minds. They have only a limited perception of who they are and of what they are supposed to do in life. They are not well–rounded individuals. Anyone who exhibits an exclusive, single-role management style is in danger of becoming Deadwood (----), a fanatic, or a martyr.
Each of the previous styles of mismanagement were three quarters deadwood (P---),(-A--),(--E-) and (---I).
When change happens, a mismanager can either adapt or “die” – that is, become Deadwood, with a (PAEI) code that looks like this: (----). The mismanagers loose the only role they could produce. The Lone Ranger is not a person with twenty years of experience. He is a person with one year of experience repeated twenty times. He does not train his subordinates nor himself. The (-A--) manages by the book, change the books and see the bureaucrat turn into a deadwood. The (---E-) as an Arsonist starts one fire too many and looses it all and the (---I), when there is need for real time decision that might need some arm twisting to implement, looks for consensus that takes time, is ignored and pushed aside. He too turns to be deadwood.
The common denominator is: Change. One-track minds in a time of change loose the only track they have.
Deadwood is agreeable, friendly, and non-threatening. He is liked, much as a friendly old uncle is liked, but he is not respected. So people endure him and do not want to hurt him. In the meantime, the organization suffers.
Deadwood is apathetic. He waits to be told what to do. He might work hard, like the Lone Ranger, but the results are not there; he does not get involved with power intrigues, like the SuperFollower; he does not provide sparks, as does the Arsonist. If he has any good ideas or opinions, he keeps them to himself. Unlike the Bureaucrat, Deadwood cares about following the rules only insofar as doing so will help him survive until retirement.
His only goal is to keep intact the little world he has created. He knows that any change threatens his position. To maximize his chances for survival, he avoids change by avoiding new jobs or projects. He does not resist anything. Resisting will expose him and make him vulnerable. So he agrees to everything and takes action on nothing.
In his free time, the Deadwood looks for successes that he can take credit for. He is usually out of the information network, but if he does get access to any information, he cherishes it and uses it at every conceivable opportunity, even when it’s irrelevant – just to prove that he’s still plugged in and kicking. Four characteristics mark Deadwood as distinct from any other mismanagement style:
No. 1: “Low managerial metabolism”
Deadwood very likely started out as one of the other four types of mismanagers, and he still evinces his former dominant personality traits. One can still see in him traces of the enthusiastic Arsonist or the meticulous Bureaucrat. But by the time he has become Deadwood, his No. 1 characteristic is a “low managerial metabolism.” He smokes or drinks a lot. He coughs, hums, and nods his head in agreement – “Uh huh”; “Oh yes, sure”; he confides to you how well he is doing, or how well he did in the past, or how well he will do, but nothing is happening. He is only going through the motions.
No. 2: Deadwood has no complaints
Each of the previous four types has a typical complaint: “The day is too short” (P); “It’s not being done the way it should be done” (A); “The most urgent priorities are not being followed” (E); “They did not understand what I really wanted to say” (I). Deadwood? If you ask him, “How is it going? Any problems?” “No, no! Everything is fine.” To be alive is to be always working on something. That is how you grow and develop. You’re trying to resolve or improve something. If there are no problems, then there are no opportunities either. But Deadwood thinks a complaint would reflect badly on him or perhaps result in changes he cannot handle. He might actually be asked to solve the problems he is complaining about. To avoid threats to his existence, he never complains.
No. 3: No resistance to change
Each of the other styles will resist change for one reason or another. If you go to the Lone Ranger and say, “This item needs to move from here to there,” what will he say? “I have no time. When am I going to do it? I am so busy, I’m falling apart!”
If you go to the Bureaucrat and say, “We need to move this item from here to there,” he’s going to yell “No!” before you even finish the sentence. He will tell you there is no way to move this item – “unless” – and the “unless” will be so complicated that you will either give up trying to get it done, or else do it without telling him about it. He “knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing;” he sees the possible repercussions of change, but not its potential value.
Now let us go to the Arsonist. “We would like to move this item from here to there.” The Arsonist says, “What a great idea! A fantastic idea! But you know what? While you’re moving this item from here to there, why don’t you move this other item as well from there to here, and also take this third item and put it over here, and then drop that building down …” His technique for approving change is to insist that it has to be his idea. And usually it is not one idea but a whole lot of them, and some of them are pretty bad.
Now we come to the SuperFollower: “We’d like to move this item from here to there.”
“That is a great idea,” he’ll say. “I am really proud of you for coming up with that idea. But you know what? It’s not the right time; the people are not ready yet. Let’s wait and see. Let us think about it a bit more.”
In contrast, if you go to the Deadwood and say, “We would like to move New York to the Sahara,” he’ll say, “Sure. Great idea. Let’s do it.” He’ll show no resistance.
A year later, if you ask him how the project to move New York to the Sahara is going, he’ll tell you, “We hired consultants. We have researched the subject; we have a study. We have a committee working on it.”
Everything is being done except one thing: Not a pebble from New York has been moved anywhere. He will have reams of papers, reports, studies to show he is working on it, but there will not be movement. Why? Because he will take no risk of failing and whenever you do anything new that risk always exists.
The irony is, the person I’m describing is every manager’s favorite subordinate! You say, “How’s it going?” He says, “No problem; everything is fine.” You give him an assignment; he says, “Sure.” This is the person you always wanted, right? You don’t want someone who says, “No, that can’t be done,” or “I have no time,” or “That’s the wrong thing to do.” You want someone who says, “Fine,” no matter what.
But think about it: Where is the quietest place in the city, where no one ever complains?
The cemetery.
No. 4: Deadwood’s subordinates
Who works for Deadwood? Other Deadwood.
Why? First of all, Deadwood’s hiring practices reflect his strategy for survival. He favors not-so-bright subordinates, even to the point of promoting those who produce less than he does. He wants to survive; he certainly does not want his job security threatened by a too-competent subordinate who could replace him. Like the adage says, “First-class people hire first-class people. Second-class people hire third-class people.”
Also, any subordinates who wish to grow and develop are completely frustrated by a Deadwood manager. He does not grow, nor does he let anyone under him grow. Either the Deadwood’s subordinates get out, or they mentally die in their jobs, becoming Deadwood too.
Even those who are not quite Deadwood themselves can create full-fledged Deadwood. The gofers who work for the Lone Ranger and the yes-yes clerks who work for the Bureaucrat become Deadwood. The claques who work for the Arsonist eventually learn to suppress their own aspirations; they learn to make lots of noise but do very little. They become Deadwood.
The SuperFollower’s subordinates become Deadwood, too. They are never sure what really needs to be done, and they become sick and tired of the politics, so they give up and just follow. Where? Nowhere, since the SuperFollower gives no direction.
The worst disaster is to have Deadwood at the top of an organization. He no longer wants to change; he is happy with his previous accomplishments. Although such management sometimes tries to disguise itself as conservative, it is in fact, moribund.
Deadwood almost never leave an organization on their own; either they die on the job, or they retire, or they are fired. They aren’t missed, but by the time they leave, the organization is usually dead as well. No purposeful activity, no creativity, no (I)ntegration of people is evident.
So here we are. We can see why the old paradigm of individualistic, ideal management is a futile search for the nonexistent. No one is perfect. Most of us humans are, more or less, mismanagers.
Does this mean that every organization worldwide has to be mismanaged?
Take our specially designed test to determine where your organization stands in its journey of growth and development. Click to get started!
