Over lunch last week, a friend of mine in the association community told me a story that I think speaks volumes about effective management. As I return to association work, I’m reminded that for every similarity to the for-profit world, there are probably two or three differences. One great difference is the interaction between employees and volunteers. There is a vital relationship that exists between staff and volunteer leaders who work on committees, task forces, and the Board of Directors.
One issue that’s terrific material for an upcoming post is fostering change in a volunteer network. Most resources on implementing change assume that it’s change from within an organization; but what happens when it’s necessary to create change in an interconnected network outside the core organization? The dynamics for transformation in an association can be very different.
But back to my friend’s story. Seems she is working for an association that currently has a Board of Directors that can be characterized as "activist." Just as there are a variety of organizational structures and dynamics, the same variety exists when it comes to how Boards interact with the doings of the association. Some Boards are content to deal with the higher levels of organizational strategy toward furthering the association’s mission.
On the other hand (and to the other extreme), my friend’s Board is much more interested in guiding the day-to-day work of the staff. The Board consists of around a dozen different people with different personalities and work styles. As I mentioned before, sometimes it’s important that a Board Member get involved in a project. Yet my friend has found that there are a few "activists" on the Board who also want to move the project in a particular direction. Guess how effective this is.
I started to think that regardless of whether it’s a Board or a manager, there are three different styles that we could consider when it comes to the interaction between managing and getting the work done:
- Hands-Off
- Hands-In
- Hands-On
Hands-Off Management isn’t as advantageous as it may sound. I’ve experienced the hands-off style of certain managers who thought they were doing me a favor by giving me lots of elbow room. Great, but with that leeway came a corresponding lack of direction. When a major decision had to be made, they went into stealth mode…only to come out of it when I made a "bad" decision. Laizzez faire might be good for market economics, but sucks when it comes to management.
If Hands-Off Management is bad, Hands-In Management is a couple of steps closer to workplace hell. Popularly thought of as micromanagement, it resides at the other end of the spectrum. The hands-in style erodes trust and kills creativity. It gets particularly rotten when you make a decision only to have a hands-in manager (or Board Member) come along and reverse the decision.
Hands-On Management lives in the middle of these two styles. A hands-on manager knows when to be involved in decisions and the work of their staff and when to give them space. It takes confidence in yourself and faith in your people. But then, it’s kind of hard to be a leader without these two things. From an employee perspective (or at least from one who wants to free to learn, be creative, and mess up on occasions), we want managers and Boards who consistently apply this style.
I sort of feel like I’m only scratching the surface here, but this post has gone on long enough. Or maybe it’s just that I need to get to work. Time to apply my own hands-on style to today’s challenges.