by Kevin R Kearns
Kevin P Kearns is associate professor of public and nonprofit management at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. He has written two books and many articles on strategic management He has presented over 100 seminars for executives in business, government, and nonprofit organizations. He is a regular presenter at SLA conferences
Jane Dawson spent much of the weekend putting the finishing touches on next year's budget for the corporate library. Jane will submit the budget proposal to her boss, Allison Jones, on Monday morning. Dawson is hopeful that Jones will support her ideas, including a 10 percent budget increase for the purchase of new computers and online databases. The cost-benefit analysis prepared by Dawson is superb and she is confident that with this budget increase, the library will be on the leading edge of information technology.
But as Jane signs the cover letter to Allison Jones, she suddenly realizes that she has absolutely no idea whether her proposed budget will be approved or not. Who makes the final decisions on budgets? What will happen to the proposal once she turns it over to Jones? How much power does Jones have in the budget process? What are the competing priorities in the corporation? The company's budget process has always been a mystery to Jane, and she has the feeling that she is 'out of the loop' on the bigger issues facing the corporation.
In fact, after two years on the job, Jane must admit that she does not know as much as she would like to about her employer, a small specialty steel company. She spent the first part of her career in nonprofit and public sector service organizations, and she is not yet accustomed to the constant pressures for production, cost control, and profit margins. Jane finds the new environment to be interesting and fast-paced. She especially likes her interactions with her clients, most of whom are younger employees engaged in highly specialized parts of the company's manufacturing and production process. They use the library primarily for their technical research. The marketing staff and some of the sales representatives are occasional users of the library; Jane suspects there is more potential among those employees, but she does not know how to tap into it. Also, Jane is still confused by the corporate culture and the constant emphasis on cost control. She was completely baffled for example, by a remark from the corporate controller several months ago, wondering if the library could conceivably become a profit center for the corporation rather than part of the overhead costs.
Then there is Jane's boss, Allison Jones. What a mystery she is! ] is the corporate attorney v knows nothing about libraries and, more importantly, seems only mildly interested in learning more. Dawson and Jones have a regularly scheduled monthly meeting which Jones sometimes cancels and often postpones. Since Jane Dawson rarely has a prepared agenda for these meetings, she is usually relieved when they are canceled. Jones seems bored and distracted during conversations about the library, and Dawson finds it stressful to meet with her. Jones is most interested in talking about the uncertain future of the corporation and complaining about the male-dominated corporate culture. Whenever Dawson tries to turn the discussion toward the library, Jones delivers her standard "lecture" about the steel industry as a closed "good old boy" network where sales and corporate performance seem to be based more on personal relationships than on product quality or competitive intelligence. Dawson does not fully agree with this pessimistic assessment, but Jones has a volatile personality, and Dawson finds it easier (and safer) to listen politely while Jones vents her frustrations. Finally, Jones rarely reads any of Dawson's reports. Yet she is quick to reprimand Dawson (and any other subordinate) whenever she is presented with surprise information-especially when it is bad news.
In fact, as Dawson puts her carefully prepared budget proposal into the envelope, she is overcome by a sinking feeling that this proposal is doomed before it even leaves her hands. She realizes that she has devoted so much time and energy to the library itself, that she had not paid attention to essential tasks of managing upward.
A Familiar Dilemma
Jane Dawson's dilemma is familiar to many information professionals. How to manage upward in a corporate environment that may be ambivalent at best and perhaps even hostile. You devote enormous time and energy to managing downward-assessing your staff, assigning responsibilities, evaluating performance, and taking corrective action, coaching, mentoring, educating. But the ultimate success o the library and your own progress as a professional depends on how well you manage upward as well as how you manage downward.
Every middle manager faces the dilemma of managing upward, but it is even more challenging for information professionals because the executives to whom they report may have inaccurate and, perhaps, negative perceptions of the role of libraries. Information professionals must spend more time managing upward than other middle managers.
Managing Upward
Before outlining and then discussing an approach to managing upward, we must be perfectly dear about what is NOT advocated here:
- Managing upward is NOT apple-polishing or psychological manipulation. Some articles and books on this topic will suggest that you find out what type of food your boss enjoys and order it for lunch, or that you invite your boss to go sailing so you can spend some quiet time together. I have no objection to genuinely friendly interaction, but it should not be the foundation of your strategy for managing upward.
- Managing upward is NOT about being a sycophant or simply adapting your style to match your bosses. Some experts suggest that you determine your boss's management and decision-making style and then adapt yours accordingly. Surely, it is important to understand your boss's style, but there is much more to managing upward than simply mimicking the boss's behavior.
-Manging upward & not a simple matter of "going along to get along" with the boss, in fact, as in any effective relationship, managing upward may require that you try to develop more constructive ways to negotiate shared goals, build mutual trust, and openly acknowledge differences and conflicts with your boss so that they may be constructively resolved rather than ignored.
What are the essential components of an effective strategy for managing upward ? There are no easy answers to that question because every situation and organizational context is unique. What works well in one organizational setting may be a disaster in another. Nonetheless, there are a few common sense principles for managing upward:
Take time to understand the corporate environment including its strategic position, its goals, objectives, and strategies.
Walk a mile in your boss's shoes and develop a realistic set of expectations regarding what you want from the boss.
Assess your boss's strengths and weaknesses and how those interact with your own strengths and weaknesses.
Understand that managing upward is not about managing the boss; it is about managing yourself within a complex set of peer and hierarchical relationships.
Let's briefly examine each of these principles using the opening case study for illustration.
The Corporate Environment,
Goals, and Strategies
To manage effectively upward, you must know how the library fits (or does not fit) within the organization's goals, objectives, and strategy. This is perhaps even more crucial if the library is classified as a support function rather than an independent profit center. As a profit center, you probably already know how the library fits within the corporate strategy; as a support or overhead function, you need to continually justify your existence.
What is the parent organization's strategic position in the marketplace? What are its comparative advantages and market niches? How secure or vulnerable is its position relative to the competition? What is the parent organization's long term vision? What are the implications for the library? Do you know the difference between horizontal and vertical growth strategies? What is the difference between a diversified growth strategy and a conglomerate strategy? is your corporation in an acquisition mode or is it liquidating assets? What financial ratios does it use to assess its performance and what trends, if any, do these ratios show over the past few years? if your organization is a public or nonprofit firm, what measures of performance does it use?
And, perhaps the most important question of all: why should you care about all of this? You should care because you must be able to speak the language and think in terms of the concepts used by those above you in the organizational hierarchy. To promote and market the library to internal customers and to educate the boss on the role of the library in advancing corporate objectives, you must understand the bigger picture of the organization and its strategic environment. Otherwise, you are simply flying blind without a clue as to whether your initiatives in the library are consistent with the direction and strategy of the organization.
In our case study, Jane Dawson knows little about her organization and its place in the market. She seems to be learning a bit here and there by osmosis but she is generally baffled by the concepts and business logic used by those above her. Not only has Jane not taken responsibility to teach herself about the specialty steel industry, but she may have missed a golden opportunity to learn from Allison Jones who seems quite willing to talk about the industry and its challenges. Jones's view, according to Dawson, seems pessimistic and one-sided, but still it is one perspective that Dawson should consider among others. Dawson would be well-advised to listen carefully to Jones for any special insights or pearls of wisdom.
Define Realistic Expectations of the Boss
What do you want from the boss and what can the boss realistically provide? If you do not have a very clear idea of what you want and need from the boss, then there is not much point in worrying about how to get it. Also, you are more likely to be disappointed and resentful toward the boss when your expectations are implicit because you want the boss to be a mind reader-to miraculously discern your needs and how to meet them.
We generally are more clear about what we expect from our subordinates than what we expect from the boss. But any successful relationship-with your spouse, siblings, parents, or whoever-ultimately depends on reaching agreement on a core set of shared goals and operating principles. Naturally, you need not agree on everything. But unless there is a strong foundation of mutually developed and agreed upon goals and objectives, then the relationship is doomed to failure. Sometimes these expectations are made explicit from the outset. Sometimes they evolve over time. And sometimes they are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, with respect to this point, your expectations of your boss must be realistic. You must remember that the boss, like you, is trying to handle competing priorities and most likely is also trying to manage upward through the hierarchy. Take a moment to reflect carefully on the context in which your boss works and the daily issues they confront. What has been the boss's history with the organization and what is your boss's current status? How much power does your boss have? is their career moving forward, backward, or laterally? Do they face any particular constraints or opportunities within the organization?
In our case study, it seems that Jane Dawson has not thought very carefully about what she expects from Allison Jones. Sure, she wants Jones's support on the budget proposal, but she is not sure that Jones can influence the outcome even if she does support the proposal. Beyond the budget proposal, it is not clear that Dawson has any expectations of Jones. For example, Dawson seems to approach her monthly meetings with Jones in a rather casual (if not reluctant) manner, without a prepared agenda and with no particular expectations. Therefore, Jones cannot be blamed if she appears bored and distracted since Dawson has made no apparent effort to actively engage Jones in a substantive dialogue on their respective goals and expectations.
Dawson resents having to suffer through Jones's regular lectures and venting on the many problems facing the organization. Even here, however, there may be an opportunity for an astute observer to pick up something from Jones's diatribes. For example, Jones dearly feels frustrated with the male dominated culture of the organization and the traditional ways in which important decisions are made through the "good old boy" network. Thus, Dawson might begin to assess more carefully Jones's power within the organization. How often does Jones get what she asks for in this company? How often is her advice solicited and followed? Does she have access to the top?
Knowing a bit more about Jones's stature within the company might serve several important purposes. First, Dawson can use this information to develop realistic expectations regarding what Jones can and cannot do. Second, Dawson can use this information to help Jones make the strongest case possible for the needs of the library. Third, Dawson should keep an open mind about Jones's rambling complaints. After all, Jones might just be completely accurate in her assessment of the organization and this is information that would surely be valuable to Dawson as she interacts with other managers in the company. Fourth, we already know that Jones is a person who does not like to be surprised. Dawson should have warned Jones that her budget proposal contains a 10 percent increase.
Understanding Strengths
and Weaknesses
There seems to be a curious contradiction in how we manage downward versus upward. When managing subordinates, we expect them to have weaknesses as well as strengths, in fact, without weaknesses, there would be little need for direct supervision. Their weaknesses define at least a part of our jobs. We, therefore, spend time mentoring, developing, and assessing the performance of subordinates taking corrective action when necessary Yet when working with our boss, we often expect them to be perfectly competent and utterly infallible, even in domains beyond their training and expertise. Perhaps we implicitly believe that the boss's larger pay check demands that they be experts in everything.
The other contradiction is that when managing downward, most of us (except the most compulsive micromanagers) acknowledge that our subordinates have certain types of expertise that we as managers do not have and we generally are pleased when they appropriately exercise responsibility and take accountability for their actions. When managing upward, however, we sometimes feel resentment when the boss knows less than we do on a certain subject or when we are asked to make difficult decisions and take accountability for them. Again, our expectations of the boss are often unrealistic and not very constructive.
The point is that each one of us-bosses and subordinates-is a combination of strengths and weaknesses, in managing upward, the key is to look for ways that your strengths complement your boss's weaknesses and the boss's strengths complement your weaknesses.
In the case study, Jane Dawson brings a relatively fresh and open attitude to an organization that may be dominated by tradition. Her strengths seem to be in the technical aspects of information access, retrieval, and dissemination. She seems to have very good instincts regarding other possible markets for the library's services (among the marketing and sales team, but she does not know how to pursue these opportunities. Jones, on the other hand, lacks Dawson's technical expertise (naturally) but she has a broader view on the organization and its position in the marketplace. Also, despite her cynicism, Jones may have insights on how Dawson might make the library's services more attractive to a broader clientele.
Is Jones a perfect manager? obviously not. Perhaps Jones is not even a competent manager. But unless Dawson chooses to pack her bags and look for work elsewhere, she must find a way to build on whatever strengths Jones brings to the table.
Managing Yourself in the
Hierarchical Relationship
One of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking reflections on the topic of managing upward is Gene Boccialetti's book, It Takes Two: Managing Yourself When Working With Bosses and Other Authority Figures (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,1995).
Boccialetti's thesis is that we should spend time assessing our subordinate style as well as our boss's leadership style. His research has uncovered several important factors that influence our subordinate style:
Deference: The extent to which you want to hold a large share of the power (and accountability) in the boss/subordinate relationship. Do you want to have a say in most decisions, or are you happy letting the boss take responsibility? Are you uncomfortable merely implementing directives from above, do you prefer to be given unambiguous guidance?
Distance: The extent to which you are comfortable with a person-to-person relationship with the boss or just a role-to-role relationship. Do you feel comfortable expressing values and feelings about work related matters, or do you prefer a strictly objective exchange of factual information? Do you feel comfortable with displays of certain emotions (anger, frustration, elation) from the boss, or do you prefer that emotional displays be eliminated?
Divergence: The extent to which you believe your goals are well-aligned with your boss's. Do you believe your boss is your competitor or your ally? Do you believe your boss has the best interests of the organization in mind, or do you distrust the boss's motives?
Boccialetti notes that different combinations of these factors may be appropriate depending on circumstances. In our case study, Jane Dawson seems to display what Boccialetti would call a diplomat subordinate style-reasonably high on the deference scale, somewhat in the middle on the distance factor, and somewhat high on the divergence scale. It may be that Dawson needs to assert herself somewhat more in her relationship with Jones. She might, for example, challenge some of Jones's implicit assumptions about the corporate culture. Regarding the distance scale, dearly Jones feels comfortable venting her frustrations to Dawson. Even though Dawson apparently feels uncomfortable with these displays of emotion, she may want to slowly and carefully "open up" with Jones regarding her own lack of knowledge about the steel industry and her need for Jones's assistance in learning more. On the divergence factor, Dawson may want to take a "wait and see" position with respect to Jones. It is not yet clear that Jones and Dawson are 'on the same page" regarding the goals of the library and Dawson doesn't yet know enough about Jones's apparent vulnerabilities within the corporation to fully trust her.
Summary: Back to Basics
Managing upward is a skill that some people master more quickly than others. But it is important to remember that it is a skill and, like any skill, it can be learned and eventually mastered. To succeed, however, we must abandon some of the stereotypes and prejudices toward the topic. Managing upward is not based on manipulation, apple polishing, or sycophantic behavior. It is based first on understanding the role of the library in advancing organizational objectives. Second, it is based on building and nurturing a mutually beneficial relationship. Here you should follow the common-sense tactics of developing shared goals and complementing each others' strengths and weaknesses, remembering that ultimately the only variable you can truly control in this relationship is yourself.
None of these suggestions will help you overcome the stifling effects of a truly dysfunctional organization or a cruel and incompetent boss. However, these strategies are certainly worth the modest investment of time and effort, if for no other reason to help you determine whether or not your relationship with the boss and with the larger organization is strong enough to build a foundation for the future.
RSS
Feedback form
