Managerial Work and the Importance of Managers: Part 3 - Identifying High Performing Managers

Last time I addressed the questions "What is a manager?" and "What does a manager do?" Today I would like to take a look at the question "How do I identify high performing managers?" This is a much more controversial question, because the definition of performance differs depending on who you talk to. For example, some people define performance in terms of direct output, or in the case of a manager, the output of the unit. Others define performance for managers as functions of how well they make decisions, or how well they form critical relationships. All of these definitions have issues with them, but I think the more common approach is some type of output measure as the final determinant of performance. 

Historically, there have been several approaches used to Identify high performing managers. The first method was a trait-based approach. What characteristics does a manager possess innately that helps them deliver high performance? The trait-based approach assumed that high performing managers were born that way. Unfortunately, trying to identify those traits that made the greatest contribution to performance proved to be unsuccessful. (I should note that with more sophisticated constructs and measures, some researchers, including myself, have returned to this approach, particularly in regards to personality.)

Another approach looked at behaviors as predictors of managerial performance. The idea here is that if you can identify the behaviors of high-performing managers, then you can teach other managers how to do those behaviors and get more high performing managers. This is the approach used by Henri Fayol in identifying the basic functions of managerial work (i.e., planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling) and by Henry Mintzberg when he identified the 10 primary roles of top managers. The behavioral approach is still in use today, and if you have had an introductory management class you should be familiar with it. 

However, behaviors are simply reflections of underlying skills, so Robert Katz proposed that a skills-based approach would be more useful. He proposed that high performing managers have technical, conceptual, and human skills. There is a good bit of research supporting this perspective, and it continues to be taught and used in both academics and business. 

But none of these approaches is totally complete. While they all add something to the mix, each approach stresses one element at the expense of the others. A more complete model is necessary, and a good first attempt at that was Boyatzis' competency model. Competencies are defined as any behavior, characteristic, or trait necessary to perform the job effectively. Boyatzis enumerated 21 of these competencies, and since the introduction of competencies this model has taken off as a tool for managerial selection and performance measurement.  As I have blogged before, competencies, however, are not without their weaknesses when used as a measure of performance. The definitions of a competency used across organizations, which competencies are important for managerial performance, and unclear and inconsistent norms for evaluating relative strengths and weaknesses for each competency tend to make them less consistent and reliable in the selection and development of high performing managers.

So what are we supposed to do? How do we identify high-performing managers? Well, that comes next time. Until then . . .