Identifying and Developing
Exceptional Managers
(excerpt)

by Howard Stevens
The HR Chally Group

Understanding where specific managers can be utilized most effectively proved vital. Describing exceptional managers from three perspectives or profiles helped clarify why some good managers failed and others succeeded.

These exceptional managers were:

• Project Managers, who innovated and initiated new developments and growth;
• Production Managers, who strived for stability, efficiency and profit; and
• Critical Leaders, who balanced a shifting emphasis from growth to profits and back again to reach their vision of the future.

An accurate match between managers' innate proclivities and the organizational channels in which they operated generally led to success. Failure could usually be traced to good managers who were operating in the wrong channel.

For example, a Project Manager filling a Production need would often try to change and innovate system breakthroughs when what was required was system refinement, stability and predictable results. Such managers had recognizable ability, but their areas of strength did not match the demands of the functions they were expected to direct and manage.

A Three-Part Team

The skills, personal motivation and capacities of Project Managers and Production Managers are quite different, and only a rare few Critical Leaders were capable of "switch-hitting" in either role.

Both the Project and Production Manager roles were crucial for the organization. A comprehensive and accurate assessment of the corporation's needs determined which unique set of abilities should dominate at any point in time. The need to stabilize operations had to be weighed against the need for innovation; the need for improving quality had to be compared to the need for new, major growth.

Each profile was able to contribute more significantly and more effectively in one set of circumstances over the other. As corporate needs shifted over time, the balance or mix of the Project profile vs. the Production profile also needed to change, if both the managers and the corporation were to flourish. Critical leaders orchestrated this continuous act of balancing and rebalancing, based on the corporation's needs.

For example, a Project Manager had primary value when the need was to develop or enhance the corporation's technical excellence or creative capacity. A Production Manager, on the other hand, protected or advanced quality, cost-saving excellence and the corporate capacity for efficiency. Critical Leaders fully appreciated both orientations. By not over-committing to either, they could provide the necessary direction to vary both.

Each profile exhibited distinct and measurable values, loyalties, motivations, and career orientations (see Figure 5). Assessment tools were developed which helped identify an individual manager's proclivity for one channel over the others. These evaluations have helped to clarify and define the "hunches" that companies have often relied on.

Exceptional Manager Profiles Fig. 5
Project Manager New & unique Designs technology Bored with repetition 90 Percenter Flexible Builds capability Personal skills & reputation Creative Motivator	Critical Leader Directs the balance: Growth vs. profit Short-term vs. long-term Developmental vs. maintenance needs Process vs. results	Production Manager Standard & reliable Applies technology Frustrated with constant change 99 Percenter Controlled Builds results Position & rank Expert Director

Project Managers

Context. Both Project Managers and Production Managers maintained and improved ongoing systems and implemented new ones as the need arose. The Project Manager, however, performed best in a start-up environment or in a true project capacity with a discrete beginning and end.

It was the Project Manager who researched, explored and designed new technology or services. The most distinguishing feature, therefore, of the Project Manager was the need to design or invent new technology or build new applications of known technology. This creative aspect spilled over into problem-solving methods.

Rather than depend on detailed analytical data, Project Managers often opted for an intuitive or deductive decision style. Creating by instinct or insight, they preferred to test new solutions by trial and error. They operated on a longer term basis, and preferred to function innovatively within the general parameters of a specified goal (e.g., a new product to be launched). They demonstrated technical expertise and highly skilled specialization in a field they greatly respected.

Organizational Niche. Project Managers were found in such positions as market research, project management, project engineering, advertising, and product development. Due to their innate project orientation, they tended to be more mobile, moving from one position to another or moving on to a new position when the inventive possibilities of the current one were reduced. In addition, Project Managers often played an essential role during the start-up phase of a production facility. In spite of the apparent contradiction in terms, such a start-up was still a project, and it often required the special drive and capacities of this particular profile (see Figure 6).

Flatspots. Unfortunately, where the Project Manager was essential during initial phases, such a manager could stall later when the facility moved into a production stance. In such situations, they were hindered by the fact that they did not want to routinize, refine or stick to repetitive tasks. They preferred to look for the new and innovative, and tended to ignore the stable or repetitive tasks critical to profit and efficiency, even though these were now the critical aspects of their jobs. They continuously saw a need for further growth and further experimentation, but downplayed the need for attention to routine details, methods and sustained systems. Project Managers would quite simply forget to feed the "cash cows"; they were too busy building and pursuing one great dream after another.

To Part 2