Considered Opinions

Know-Don’t-Know

After many decades in the business world, I couldn’t help but form some ideas about people management. So I come away with the conclusion that almost everyone wants to do well and that the job of managing is solely about enabling those people to perform their best.

There is a wonderful book written more than a half-century ago called  Management of Organizational Behavior^[i]Not to be confused with some of his later works, which are probably equally good. by Paul Hersey, in which he discusses the use of what he called at the time “TASK”^[ii]TASK = detailed directions on the definition of the job, and instructions regarding how to go about accomplishing it. and “RELATIONSHIP”^[iii]RELATIONSHIP = showing confidence in, and encouragement of the subordinate, on a personal level. across a continuum of “MATURITY”^[iv]MATURITY = the person’s innate abilities and skills needed to accomplish the task at hand. as a management style. In his later works, he referred to TASK as “Directive Behavior” and RELATIONSHIP as “Supportive Behavior”, as shown in the chart on the right. I borrowed his theory and gradually evolved into what I think is an easier way to recognize what each individual needs to be successful. That need, in any given situation, depends not only on the individual’s “Knowledge” from his or her experience and training but also on their “Awareness” of it. In other words, it is important to possess the appropriate motivation and skill set, but also to be aware of the potential and limitations of those things.

I reduced Hersey’s idea to the following simple matrix of four quadrants^[v]If this were an electrical device, we would display its parameters using classic Cartesian Co-ordinates, with voltage on the abscissa and current on the ordinate, like this SCR family of curves. However, I will renumber them so as to make them easier to remember., where my objective was, and still is, that as managers, always having limited time, we need to invest that time where it is most productive. Those individuals falling within three of the four quadrants of my matrix are potentially very productive, leaving the remaining one quadrant to absorb all of your time.

⇐ There are those who; ⇒

My little matrix served me well for many years, but I eventually realized there was a fifth category of individuals who didn’t fit the matrix. I call it Cat5 because there cannot be more than four positions in a quadrant.

There are those who;

 

The questions remain as to how to decide which quadrant is appropriate for each individual, particularly when hiring new people, and how does one account for an individual’s progress over time. It is also too common that people who excel in one functional category are moved to another with the expectation that they will do well in a different role. While an engineering manage might eceeed all expections in that role,

We take on those questions of “Instinct”, “Common Sense”, “Training”, and “Experience” in the next section.

Please note before continuing that I am not a psychiatrist. I am also not a management training expert or human behavioral scientist – if there is such a thing. Furthermore, I have done absolutely no research that might validate any of these ideas, nor do I intend to do so in the future. Rather, I am a simple engineer with a lot of experience managing people, from teenagers to highly trained professionals from various parts of the World, and with various levels of experience.

The following are strictly my ideas, so proceed to Working Wisdom cautiously.

By: Jim
Written: circa 1995
Published: May 2020
Revised: 
Reader feedback always appreciated