Over the past three decades, I have promoted scores of individuals into management positions — often with disappointing results in the early years, despite a seemingly rigorous selection process. It’s not that these folks were abject failures in their new managerial roles. It’s just that too few of them displayed the level of excellence that had earned them the promotion in the first place.
Case in point: during this early phase of my career, as director of HR for a heavy equipment manufacturer, we promoted one of our top sales professionals to vice-president of sales and marketing. Jim (not his real name) was a great salesman who loved the chase and beating his own targets. However, managing his one-time peers, being responsible for planning and strategy, and developing budgetary guidelines and parameters were altogether different. He missed the freedom that the world of business development provided, and the administrative detail of his new position was too confining. We eventually found a way to allow Jim to return to selling, where he once again excelled.
THE WRONG METRICS
After a few more mishaps along the same lines, the truth finally dawned on me: The performance metrics by which we judge engineers, accountants, sales folks, and others as individual contributors are not the same that we use for judging managerial talent. When looking for managerial talent, we too often choose functional stars who don’t have the interpersonal skills or the moxie required to manage others. And when we’re lucky enough to find the functional stars who could succeed with the proper support and guidance, we don’t always give it to them.
Jim’s failure had more to do with those of us who sent him into battle unprepared for the heavy burden of managing a large, geographically diverse sales group than it did with Jim himself. He missed the networking and camaraderie, experiencing a kind of withdrawal from knocking on doors every day. And he never understood that his underlings needed coaching in the art of sales. Salesmanship came to him instinctively, and he thought such was the case with everyone.
Had Jim been given the proper coaching and training, I believe he would have succeeded. Some of those skills that made Jim a tremendous salesman would have been useful in his managerial role. He was all about building business, he was a great listener who easily connected with people, and he invariably delivered more than he promised. He instinctively understood that time was money and acted accordingly. Perhaps most importantly, he was always pushing himself to a higher standard.
ART AND SCIENCE
Gallup’s “State of the American Manager – Analytics and Advice for Leaders” suggests that real management talent is a rarity, with only one in ten managers having the “natural ability” to direct a team of people. Absent cloning those who manage well, we need to do a much better job identifying individuals who have potential to succeed as managers – those who can motivate the workforce, hold employees accountable for results, and handle the administrative aspect of the job – and then help newly minted managers hone the appropriate skills. As with many aspects of leadership and management, it’s part art and part science.
Here’s how we can do a better job by talented employees of all stripes:
Finding managerial talent does not have to be the almost-impossible task the Gallup statistics would suggest. But we need to start new managers on their journey with advocacy and support, not just a slap on the back and a hearty handshake. This is long overdue in the corporate realm.