“To Be or Not To Be…” The Quintessential Challenge of Management

Written by Mika Liss, August 5, 2012. A tribute to OA.

In addition to the existential question he poses, Hamlet’s deliberation, “To be or not to be,” marks, for me, one of the most profound challenges of management.   My manager and mentor “raised” me to believe that one of the responsibilities a manager has is to facilitate his/her subordinates’ reaching of their potential.

This is easier said than done.

Potential is one of life’s least black and white areas (I am avoiding the word “gray” because potential, like hope, is made of brighter colors, like yellow, blue, pink and green).  Everything in life has potential- the bud can blossom into glorious flower in the right surroundings.  Similarly people and relationships can bloom but while a flower has a pre-determined ceiling and lifespan, people and relationships do not. 

People, like relationships, can be cultivated, nurtured and grow to great heights, provided they are willing, and the manager is also so inclined.  One of the most known passages in the Twelfth Night is “Some are born great… Some achieve greatness… And some have greatness thrust upon them.”  As a manager, I subscribe to this approach; part of my purpose is to identify individuals who have potential and then to determine if s/he is interested in achieving it.  There are many managers who believe otherwise; some view their subordinates as threats, some view employees as existing primarily to make their manager look good and some simply not know how to mentor others.  Ideally, both manager and employee are fully engaged towards enabling career progression. 

In the pursuit of greatness, there are several factors to be considered.

It hurts! By definition, growing means we are trying new things and inevitably, making mistakes.  Growing means we are exposing ourselves to unknowns, forced to trust someone else to guide and support us. How we choose to handle our mistakes and our openness to this type of relationship is key to our success and the rewards we reap.  There are many individuals who are not interested in exploring their own potential- for them, a job is just a way to put bread on the table and others for whom complacency (read: mediocrity) with their output at the workplace is the chosen path. For still others, it Is not necessarily a choice but rather an understanding of one’s limitations.

Ultimately, understanding limitation is what makes this topic the quintessential managerial challenge: how much potential do we each have?

One of the things that makes being human both enjoyable and frustrating is that once we’ve achieved a particular goal, we seek to go beyond.  For example, once a certain level of closeness is attained, we push our relationships to increased intimacy often without intention.  

Accordingly we must ask if we are able to understand and accept when potential has been fulfilled.  The fatal flaw of the mentor to whom I have dedicated this article is that he believed everyone’s potential was never-ending so no matter how much was achieved, he thought more could be done and never stopped pushing. Rarely is this true.  As humans, we have limits.  Good managers should see when the shoe fits, i.e. when an individual is in the right role and contently revel in their productivity. For the sake of our mental health, it is imperative that we realize our successes and are able to be content with them. 

For those on the path of career progression, timing is also a factor that the manager must include in the plan. For example, an employee can be ripe with potential but then have a personal circumstance which prohibits pursuing it at certain times i.e. birth of a new baby, moving houses et al.   Accordingly, a manager must be patient and thoughtfully consider ongoing events when pushing. Good managers need to find the balance between pushing and pausing.

I’d like to believe as my mentor did- that we all have infinite potential and are capable of great things. There’s something to his philosophy and so, while I continue to seek out the right balance, I will also continue encouraging everyone to reach for the moon because, as saying goes, “even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.”

Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall

In my experience, there are two main reasons managers fail: hubris and working harder instead of smarter.

The paradox of becoming a manager is that we work very hard to get the promotion and once we are there, in order to succeed, we have to start working differently. Psychologically, it’s seems baffling. After the reward and positive reinforcement of a certain type of behavior, there is an unspoken request to adapt our behavior to the different requirements of the new role.

It helps to understand that the reward was not just for working hard but also for our work ethic. Service-orientation, a proactive approach and responsiveness are just a few of the qualities that, when combined with hard work, sometimes lead to managerial positions.

As managers, however, while we may work as many hours, or more, additional time and effort is required to accomplish our goals. As managers, we need to look at the bigger picture, understand how our efforts fit it and prioritize accordingly. We need to allocate time for thinking, for planning, and for motivating and supporting our peers and subordinates. We need to consult with and get input from our “superiors” (I refer to the Emersonian definition). We need to work smarter, not harder.

But here’s the catch. While we are working smarter, we might start to think we are smarter…

Just as hubris was the hallmark of Greek tragedy so too is it a primary cause of careers cut short in the corporate world. For some inexplicable reason, at a certain point in the managerial career path, individuals lose touch with their humble beginnings. Instead of continuing to relate to and take an interest in their fellow foot solders- the individuals who really know what’s happening- they begin to think they know enough on their own.

Jim Collins discussed this behavior in Good to Great. He refers to the “mirror vs. window” concept. His “Level 5 Leaders,” who are the elite of the elite, “look out the window” and credit external factors when things go well and “look in the mirror” to assume responsibility when things did not.

While I concur with Collins’s point, I’ve always frowned upon looking in the mirror.

Maybe because people who spend time adoring themselves in the mirror (yes, we’ve all seen these individuals at the gym and in elevators) are usually somewhat self-centered. David Lieberman’s book Instant Analysis says “it’s often not a case of simple vanity. You seek your own reflection because that is your only source of psychological nourishment… A low self-image often translates into a sense of diminished physical presence.”

Lieberman’s analysis fits well with Collins’s in that Collins’s reflection assigns accountability where Lieberman’s- and that of most self-gazers- reflects deflection. Those of us who are confident enjoy more time peering into the world and people around us than time gazing in the looking glass.

In today’s world, where the omnipresent handheld device is an extension of ourselves, we are prone to self-absorption. Our digital lives, devoid of nuances and human interaction, impair our ability to hear and see what is happening around us.

My motto and practice is to do as Darwin Smith, who headed Kimberly-Clark, is quoted as saying: “I never stopped trying to be qualified for the job.”

To All who aspire to inspire, and to All who wish to succeed in management- Follow Smith’s example because ultimately, inquiring “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall” will lead us to the same end as Snow White’s evil stepmother- demotion, disrepute and loss of our kingdom.