The Difference Between Management And Leadership

Leadership and management are two notions that are often used interchangeably. However, these words actually describe two different concepts. In this section, we shall discuss these differences and explain why both terms are thought to be similar.

Leadership is a facet of management Differences In Perspectives Subordinate As A Leader Loyalty The Leader Is Followed. The Manager Rules Management Knows How It Works Conclusion References

---

Leadership is a facet of management

Leadership is just one of the many assets a successful manager must possess. Care must be taken in distinguishing between the two concepts. The main aim of a manager is to maximise the output of the organisation through administrative implementation. To achieve this, managers must undertake the following functions:

• organisation
• planning
• staffing
• directing
• controlling

Leadership is just one important component of the directing function. A manager cannot just be a leader, he also needs formal authority to be effective. "For any quality initiative to take hold, senior management must be involved and act as a role model. This involvement cannot be delegated." [1]

In some circumstances, leadership is not required. For example, self motivated groups may not require a single leader and may find leaders dominating. The fact that a leader is not always required proves that leadership is just an asset and is not essential.

Return to top

---

Differences In Perspectives

Managers think incrementally, whilst leaders think radically. "Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing." [2]. This means that managers do things by the book and follow company policy, while leaders follow their own intuition, which may in turn be of more benefit to the company. A leader is more emotional than a manager . "Men are governed by their emotions rather than their intelligence" [3]. This quotation illustrates why teams choose to follow leaders.

"Leaders stand out by being different. They question assumption and are suspicious of tradition. They seek out the truth and make decisions based on fact, not prejudice. They have a preference for innovation." [4]

Return to top

---

Subordinate As A Leader

Often with small groups, it is not the manager who emerges as the leader. In many cases it is a subordinate member with specific talents who leads the group in a certain direction. "Leaders must let vision, strategies, goals, and values be the guide-post for action and behaviour rather than attempting to control others." [5]

When a natural leader emerges in a group containing a manager, conflict may arise if they have different views. When a manager sees the group looking towards someone else for leadership he may feel his authority is being questioned.

Return to top

---

Loyalty

Groups are often more loyal to a leader than a manager. This loyalty is created by the leader taking responsibility in areas such as:

• Taking the blame when things go wrong.
• Celebrating group achievements, even minor ones.
• Giving credit where it is due.

"The leader must take a point of highlighting the successes within a team, using charts or graphs, with little presentations and fun ideas" [6]

"Leaders are observant and sensitive people. They know their team and develop mutual confidence within it." [7]

Return to top

---

The Leader Is Followed. The Manager Rules

A leader is someone who people naturally follow through their own choice, whereas a manager must be obeyed. A manager may only have obtained his position of authority through time and loyalty given to the company, not as a result of his leadership qualities. A leader may have no organisational skills, but his vision unites people behind him.

Return to top

---

Management Knows How It Works

Management usually consists of people who are experienced in their field, and who have worked their way up the company. A manager knows how each layer of the system works and may also possess a good technical knowledge. A leader can be a new arrival to a company who has bold, fresh, new ideas but might not have experience or wisdom.

Return to top

---

Conclusion

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. The manager uses a formal, rational method whilst the leader uses passion and stirs emotions. William Wallace is one excellent example of a brilliant leader but could never be thought of as the manager of the Scots!

Return to top

---

References

[1] Daniel. F. Predpall, ‘Developing Quality Improvement Processes In Consulting Engineering Firms’, Journal of Management in Engineering, pp 30-31, May-June 1994

[2] Richard Pascale, ‘ Managing on the Edge’, Penguin Book, pp 65, 1990

[3] John Fenton, ‘ 101 Ways to Boost Your Business Performance’, Mandarin Business, pp 113, 1990

[4] John Fenton, ‘ 101 Ways to Boost Your Business Performance’, Mandarin Business, pp 113, 1990

[5] Daniel. F. Predpall, ‘Developing Quality Improvement Processes In Consulting Engineering Firms’, Journal of Management in Engineering, pp 30-31, May-June 1994

[6] John Fenton, ‘ 101 Ways to Boost Your Business Performance’, Mandarin Business, pp 114, 1990

[7] John Fenton, ‘101 Ways to Boost Your Business Performance’, Mandarin Business, pp 113, 1990

Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck?

If you studied math, science, or engineering at a four-year college in the US, much of what you learned is useless, forgotten, or obsolete. All that money, all that time, all that wasted talent. If all we lost were a few years, no big deal. But the really scary part is that we never learned what matters most to true experts in math, science, and engineering. We never really learned how to DO math, science, and engineering.

Toward the end of his life, legendary mathematician Jacques Hadamard asked 100 of the top scientists of his time how they did whatever it was that they did (math, physics, etc.) Hadamard's survey found a massive disconnect between how we teach math and science and how mathematicians and scientists actually work. The majority of his contemporaries apparently claimed that using the logical, left-brain symbols associated with their work was NOT how they did their work. These were simply the tools they used to communicate it. What they used to do the works was much... fuzzier. Intuition. Visualization. Sensation (Einstein talked of a kinesthetic element). Anthropomorphizing. Metaphors.

We are in sooooo much trouble.

What experts use to do their work are the things we don't teach. We focus almost exclusively on how to talk about the work. Obviously this doesn't mean nobody learns to do it... we have plenty of expert engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who become great either in spite of faulty teaching or because they lucked out and had excellent, clueful instructors and mentors. But we also hear more and more teachers, experts, and employers railing against the sorry state of our advanced technical educations today. The problem is, many of these same teachers, experts, and employers have a tough time articulating what's wrong, let alone how to fix it.

And what do we do to try and improve things? We just do MORE of what's wrong. We redouble our efforts. We drill and test students even harder in facts and rote memorization. We work and test them even harder on using the tools for communication (e.g. code) rather than the tools for thought (e.g. intuition, visualization, etc.)

Our educational institutions--at every level--need drastic changes or we're all screwed. The generation of students we're turning out today need skills nobody really cared about 50, 40, even 20 years ago. Where we used to prepare students for a "job for life", now we must prepare students to be jobless. We must prepare them to think fast, learn faster, and unlearn even faster ("yes, that drug was the appropriate way to treat the XYZ disease, but that was so last week. THIS week we now realize it'll kill you.")

The Waterfall Model of education is failing like never before. We need Agile Learning.

Three of the many people who've been leading the charge on this are Roger Schank, Dan Pink (his "Whole New Mind" book is a must-read), and computing/learning guru Alan Kay. One of my favorite Alan Kay notions is something like this, "If you want to be a better programmer, take up the violin." He claims that the more time he spends playing music, the fresher and better his approaches to engineering become. He's an outspoken critic of engineering students focusing too early in their education, because he believes that with a more liberal arts education, you get metaphors and ways of thinking and seeing that are vital to your later engineering work.

I'll end this with two quotes:

From Jason Fried:
"Hire curious people. Even if they don't have the exact skill set you want, curious, passionate people can learn anything."

And from Jacques Hadamard:
" Logic merely sanctions the conquests of the intuition."

If intuition is the heart of what true experts do, then shouldn't we be trying to teach that? Or at the least, stop stifling and dissing it? And yes, I do believe that we can teach and inspire all those fuzzy things including intuition and even curiosity. But we are running out of time.

[UPDATE: Martin Polley brought up the TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson, and if you haven't seen it already--I urge you to check it out ASAP!

Mark Fowler was surprised that I didn't bring up the book What the Best College Teachers Do, and I can't believe I left it out of the post. I believe it is the single best book on helping someone learn. When we had our most recent author's bootcamp, it was the one book we gave to all attendees. Thanks Mark.

I highly recommend the comments to this post -- they're insightful on all sides, agreement and disagreement and all points in between. And before you tell me I'm advocating for throwing out fundamentals, memorization, facts, logic, etc... PLEASE look again at my venn diagram ; ) This is about brain balance, and addressing much more of the brain than just the narrow channels that are the parts of the brain that actually "talk." ]

Why Management?

Management is a critical function for every organization, and people trained in management play this important role in organizations of every size and type. The skills, techniques, and theories acquired by the management major leads to jobs in business, government, and the non-profit sector. People who plan to establish their own firms or to become part of a family owned firm also pursue a management major. Course work in this major helps individuals learn to:

motivate, lead, and develop others;

structure organizations capable of meeting both profit and social responsibility goals;

work well in accomplishing work individually and through others;

communicate accurately; and

develop a strategic perspective on the organization and its parts.

Skills that Management majors develop:

Interpersonal communication, negotiation, listening, managing, positive attitude, motivation, organization, leadership, ambition, team leadership, and critical thinking.

Leadership vs Management

Leadership and management are distinct concepts but the words are often used as though they have the same meaning. This confusion may arise from the fact that sometimes the same person is employed to do the job of leader and manager.

A leader’s job is to decide where the team they are leading is heading. A leader will set the ultimate aim, objective and goals for the team. They will then inspire and motivate the team to achieve the objectives set. This will involve reviewing progress and ensure that the team is on course to achieve the objectives set.

A manager’s job is to set how the team will achieve the objectives set by the leader. They will overcome any problems the team encounter and decide how to deal with complexity.

A simple way of illustrating the difference between leader and manager is to use the example of a team who are set the goal of building a path from point A to point B.

The leader’s job will be to

• Set the goal of building a path.
• Decide that the path will go from A to B.
• Inspire and motivate the team so that they want to build a path for their leader.
• Review progress as the path is built and ensure that the team are building the path from A to B.

The manager’s job will be to

• Plan the project and decide things such as budgets, pay and materials used.
• Implement plans and control building of the path.
• Organise the team and delegate tasks to them.
• Overcome any problems eg trees blocking the route where the path is to be built.

Another way of differentiating a leader from a manager is to think of someone known as a world leader for example Martin Luther King and think about what they did. You will discover that each of these leaders are great visionaries, and are able to inspire and motivate their audience. They will present their ideas and dreams to the world in a way that they feel appeals to the audience. They will give them an overview of the vision and will not set the small details of how their vision will be achieved. Instead the small details will be decided by other people. Other people will plan and manage the work needed to achieve the leader’s vision. The leader’s job is to continue motivating and ensuring that project is on course to achieve it’s objectives.

Simple gestures count the most

Bob Nelson

One of the best kept secrets in management today is the power of recognizing employees. Study after study has demonstrated that what employees most want is to be acknowledged for the job they do day in and day out. This recognition does not have to be anything fancy, in fact, the simpler and more direct, the better. One of the most motivating forms of recognition as reported by employees is very simple indeed: taking the time to personally thank an employee for something they did well. This seems very obvious yet when was the last time you did it? If you are typical, it has been some time. If this is the case, start thinking about who you will thank for his or her efforts today.

To be the most effective, the thank you should come as soon as possible after the achievement or desired activity has occurred. If you wait too long to thank a person, over time the gesture will lose its significance. Implicitly, the employee will figure that other things were more important to you than taking a few minutes with him or her.

You need to also be very specific about what you are praising the person for and why. Praisings that are too broad tend to seem insincere. But saying, "Thanks for staying late to finish those calculations I needed. It was critical for my meeting this morning," specifically says what and why an employee's effort was of value.

If you need a reminder, a form can be used. At Tektronix, Inc., the company instituted a simple way for managers and employees alike to focus on recognizing others for doing something right. Dubbed the "You Done Good Award," this simple certificate was printed in pads and could be given to anybody in the company from anybody else in the company. On it, individuals stated what was done, who did it and when, and then gave the certificate to the person.

The idea has caught on and is now part of life at Tektronix. Says one employee: "Even though people say nice things to you, it means something more when people take the time to write their name on a piece of paper and say it."

Another simple yet effective approach is to put notes on business cards. Hohn Plunkett, Director of Employment and Training for Cobb Electric Membership Corporation in Marietta, GA, says "People love to collect others' business cards. Simply carry a supply of your cards with you and as you "catch people doing something right," immediately write "Thanks," "Good job," "Keep it up" and what they specifically did in two to three words. Put the person's name on the card and sign it.

Although less personal, messages left on telephone voice-mail or computer e-mail can be also be effective. All these simple gestures indicate that you are not too busy to miss the fact that an employee has done something special.

As Ron Zemke, senior editor of Training magazine once observed: "Recognition is something a manager should be doing all the time -- it's a running dialogue with people." The act of delivering simple, direct praise for a job well done is so easy to do, yet so many managers do not do it. As a result they are robbing themselves and their employees of one of the most powerful forms by which to shape and reinforce desired performance -- and feel better in the process. Try it, you'll like it--and so will those with whom you work.

Making time for recognition

Bob Nelson

One of the most pervasive problems I encounter in working with managers is getting them to find time to practice employee praise and recognition. Managers are often too busy focusing on what's urgent--such as dealing with daily crises in their jobs--and as a result don't have any time left to focus on what's important--namely, the people they manage. This situation is unfortunate, as extensive research on employee motivation indicates that the most motivating incentives reported by employees are ones that are personally provided by one's manager--the most important of which is a personal thank you for a job well done. Yet in one study some 58 percent of employees report that their managers seldom, if ever, thank them for doing a good job when they do so.

The situation is made worse by the false perception on the part of many managers that they are, in fact, providing employees with plenty of praise and recognition. According to Aubrey Daniels, a leading authority on the topic of performance management, "Those managers who feel they do it (positive reinforcement) the most, in my experience, actually do it the least." That is, managers may have learned along the way that they need to be positive, but on a day-to-day basis they often are doing very little to catch their employees doing something right.

Worse yet, often the positive reinforcement they are practicing is incorrect, for example, providing individual feedback that is nonspecific or insincere, praising some employees while overlooking others that have also done good work, being overly general in their praise, or having their facts wrong about specific performance they want to acknowledge.

How can managers start praising their employees more? Like any behavioral change you have to find a way to make it habit--a natural part of your daily routine. For example, I've been successful at getting analytical, task-oriented managers to start praising employees more by getting them to think of their people part of their things to do list. I recommend that managers list the names of each person that reports to them on their weekly "to do" list and cross each person off the list once they have given him or her a praising based on that person's performance. For some managers, such a specific technique helps make the activity from being a general, intangible activity to a specific, finite action item--thus much easier to complete.

In another example, Hyler Bracey, president of The Atlanta Consulting Group, knew he wanted to praise employees more, but found his good intentions did not often translate to daily behavior. To correct this situation, he started putting five coins in his jacket pocket each morning and transferring a coin to another pocket each time during the day that he gave positive feedback to an employee. Within a few weeks the new habit took hold and praising employees became second nature to him. Says Bracey: "Praising employees truly works. There is so much more energy and enthusiasm in a workplace where praise has become ingrained in the manager."

Every manager needs to find forms of recognition they are willing to do. For some managers writing personal notes works; for other managers being visible and "managing by walking around" is the ticket. Still others might sanction a group celebration as is warranted.

The power of positive reinforcement can only occur as managers find time to put the principle into practice on a daily basis with each of their employees. Remember: "Good thoughts not delivered mean squat."

The power of suggestion

Bob Nelson

The average American worker makes 1.1 suggestions per year where he or she works today--one of the lowest suggestion rates of any industrialized nation.

Would you like more ideas at work? Ideas for saving money, improving customer service, streamlining processes and so forth? What business wouldn't? I'm convinced that every employee has at least one $50,000 idea inside of them. The trick is to find a way to get it out.

Boardroom Inc. in Greenwich, Conn., has found a way to get ideas out. It's a program they call "I Power" and they credit the suggestion program with a five-fold increase in their revenues in under four years--as well as untold benefit to the morale, energy and retention of their employees.

Each employee is asked to turn in two suggestions every week, which are evaluated the same week by an employee volunteer. For many of the suggestions, the evaluator says "What a great idea!" and then returns the idea to the person who suggested it with the implicit permission to proceed in implementing the idea. "Let us know how we can help!" After all, who has more energy for an idea than the person who initially came up with it?

As Martin Edelston, chairman and CEO of Boardroom says, "Sometimes the best idea can come from the newest, least experienced person on your staff." Like the hourly paid shipping clerk who suggested that the company consider trimming the paper size of one of its books in order to get under the four-pound rate and save some postage. The company made the change and did indeed save some postage: a half a million dollars the first year and each year since. Explains Marty: "I had been working in mail-order for over 20 years and never realized there was a four-pound shipping rate. But the person who was doing the job knew it, as most employees know how best their jobs can be improved."

The first year of the program, suggestions were limited to one's own job. Then as employees got the hang of the program, suggestions were encouraged for any aspect of the operation. The company now even has group meetings just to share and discuss ideas related to specific problems and issues facing the organization.

And the benefits of the suggestions are not limited to only saving money. Says Antoinette Baugh, director of personnel, "People love working here because they know they can be a part of a system where they can make a contribution." Adds Lisa Castonguay, renewals and billing manager: "My first couple of weeks I was kind of taken aback because everyone was smiling and everyone was open." She recalls her first day of work in which she was pulled into a group meeting and within 30 minutes of walking in the front door was asked, "What do you think we should do about this problem?"

Lisa almost fell on the floor. Why? Because she had just come from a company where she had worked for eight years and no one had every asked her opinion about anything. Once she got over the initial shock, it felt pretty good to have her opinions and ideas sought after and valued by those with whom she worked. As a result, it was easy for her to want to think of additional ways to help the company.

The impact is both positive and contagious. "People became agents of their own change," says Marty. "There's so much inside of all of us and we don't even know it's there until someone asks about it. And in the process it just builds and builds."

Five Ways to Praise

Bob Nelson

Employees have been stressed and squeezed and asked to do more with fewer resources time and time again, so it's all the more important to take some time to thank and appreciate your employees for their contributions to the success of your organization.

There are five ways that you can praise employees: personal praise, written praise, electronic praise, public praise and indirect praise. Although these different types of praise may all seem related, I have learned that they are mutually exclusive, that is, they each mean different things to different people and different things to the same person at different times. Here's how you can show employees your appreciation:

Personal Praise - is considered the most important type of praise by employees. It consists of being verbally thanked one-on-one for doing good work and being specifically sought out for such praise by one's manager. The best personal praise is timely, sincere, and specific. Create time to connect with each of your employees--even if it's over coffee or lunch--to see how they are doing and to thank them for all they've done.

Written Praise - is considered to be the next most valued type of praise by employees and it, too, comes in several varieties: from a written note of thanks or a thank you card to a more formal letter of commendation being added to one's personnel file. In past years I've taken time to write an individual letter to each of my employees, specifically listing highlights of their performance. This takes less time than you might think and the impact on the employees is significant.

Electronic Praise - is similar to written praise, but enables you to leverage positive communication as it occurs in your daily work. In my research, 28% of employees report it is "extremely important" to them to have positive e-mail messages forwarded to them and 65 percent say it's "extremely or very important" to be copied on positive e-mail messages. Use this technology to highlight any good news as it occurs. And don't forget the use of voicemail as well to leave a positive word of thanks.

Public Praise - in front of management and peers is valued by most employees and there is almost an endless variety of ways to acknowledge employees publicly. Taking time at the beginning or end of a staff meeting to thank employees or allowing employees to acknowledge one another in a group meeting is effective. If you have an employee celebration, you can use that occasion to spotlight and thank individuals and the group. Share stories about people's successes and thank your staff for their dedication and hard work.

Indirect Praise - is using any of the above techniques to praise someone and his or her performance to others even if they are not present, knowing that word will get back to the person who you singled out in a positive way. For some employees, this form of recognition is the most credible because it is done without any expectation in return. "My supervisor must have thought what I did was important to have brought it up to the General Manager!"

It doesn't take a lot to make a big difference in how your employees feel about themselves and their work. Make sure to connect with each of your employees in a way that they'll remember throughout the work day.

Be sure to take time to reward yourself

Bob Nelson

I find the best managers today tend to be employee-focused, looking to help others succeed in their jobs. They know the power of positive reinforcement--that is, catching other people doing something right--in working with others and recognizing and rewarding them for their efforts and results. They know that by providing a positive consequence--whether it is a word of thanks, taking someone out to lunch, or devising a special award--they will greatly increase the chances of having the desired behavior repeated or the high performance even further enhanced. They know the greatest management principle in the world is: "You get what you reward."

How often, however, do we take time to reward ourselves? With as busy as most people are today, it's easy for any of us to feel overworked and underappreciated and in the process to become a victim at work, being quick to blame others about the lack of recognition we receive. It doesn't have to be that way. You can do something to recognize and reward yourself when you finish a project, help a co-worker, or set a personal best level of performance that others may not even be aware of. To relax, acknowledge your success, and give yourself a chance to appreciate and regenerate is essential to keeping fresh and effective whatever your position is.

Taking a break from your routine helps to stimulate your thinking as well. Jack Canfield, co-author of Chicken Soup for the Soul advises others to "increase the amount of time you get away from the office so you can increase the high-level thinking required to come up with big ideas. When I come back to work [from vacation], I immediately see the results. I'm more productive and creative. While on vacation, I'll also get incredible ideas that wouldn't happen at home because I'm too busy putting out fires."

Jack also gets energy by spending time with others. He belongs to a Master Mind group, a term coined by legendary motivational guru Napoleon Hill, author of Think and Grow Rich, who suggested people form support groups to motivate and inspire each other. Jack says, "We all get locked into our own myopic viewpoints and very rarely get to see other, broader points of view. Regular meetings with successful people from different professions help open our thinking to new, bigger possibilities."

What works best to relax and rejuvenate, of course, varies widely from person to person, so it is important to be aware of what things you find most satisfying and rewarding. For some people, it is time with their family; for others it may be reading or exercise; still others might like to buy something for themselves--during a stressful time, to acknowledge a milestone, or as a way of picking up their spirits when they feel down.

One company I worked with gave each employee $50 cash on the condition that they leave the company and spend the money on themselves within the next two hours. Employees then had to return to the company to show everyone what they bought and why. This created a fun, rewarding and amazing experience as groups dashed off to Nordstrom, Sportsmart and so forth. In addition to getting a chance to buy something for oneself, the activity enhanced both morale and the level of team building that existed in the organization.

When everyone got back together to share, the variety of purchases was as varied as the employees themselves. One woman got her nails done, many people got things for their favorite hobbies, several people purchased electronic organizers, some bought books, and so on. Many employees were heard to say how they "never get anything for myself" because of a lack of time, money and/or energy we all face or the tendency many of us have to pamper our children and not ourselves.

It doesn't take much to reward yourself--take a break and do so when you feel you've deserved it!

Accountability is a key component in a business

Bob Nelson

Accountability --- or positive accountability, as I like to refer to it --- starts with raising the awareness of what is expected of everyone in the workplace, why that is important, what it looks like, and what the organization will do to support people in fulfilling these expectations.

You need to capture the Heads (awareness), Hands (skills) and Hearts (motivation) of each and every person and bring them, one by one, into the game of work. Not as easy as simply announcing the goal, but more effective and sustainable as you make progress.

It is difficult to force anyone to do anything in today's work environments. You need to think of work as a journey to transfer ownership and responsibility from wherever it currently is (the manager/owner, HR, Corporate) to each and every employee in the organization. You can't just command this of them and expect it to happen. It won't. You also can't just create a program and drop it on the organization or provide work tools for employees to use and hope for the best. In both scenarios, you'll be sadly disappointed. Some associates will grab hold (the ones that were already so inclined), some will wait to see what happens to the first ones who try something, and most will wait to see if they ever even hear about the program (or tools) again.

As to examples of organizations that have done specific things to hold people accountable for practicing recognition, here is spectrum of techniques from nudging to hammering I have seen, from some organizations I have worked with in the past:

• Sierra View District Hospital in Porterville, California, initially provided some recognition tools for managers to use and encouraged them to try those out for a year and then required a certain number be used per manager the second year.
• Bronson Health Care in Kalamazoo, Mich., did a similar thing, requiring that every manager use a dozen thank you notes each quarter and provide copies of those notes to their managers. HR would do "spot checks" to see how a manager's notes were coming and if they were behind, would set up a little meeting with the manager's senior leader to discuss. They told me they never had to set up a second little meeting with any manager.
• Boardroom Inc. in Greenwich, Conn., asks all managers and employees to submit two suggestions PER WEEK and doing so is a requirement of participating in the company's gain-sharing program at year end. If someone falls behind, they will send them a large Hershey's bar with a note of encouragement "for nourishment" as they think up additional ideas.
• AAA of Southern California uses a 360-degree feedback from employees to score managers on how well they provide recognition, encouragement, etc. The quantitative scores translate into how a third of the managers' annual bonuses are calculated.

The Human Factor

by Gerard M Blair

In the management of a small team, the human factor is crucial to success. This article considers possible motivators and a simple framework for dealing with people.

When you are struggling with a deadline or dealing with delicate decisions, the last thing you want to deal with is "people". When the fight is really on and the battle is undecided, you want your team to act co-operatively, quickly, rationally; you do not want a disgruntled employee bitching about life, you do not want a worker who avoids work, you do not want your key engineer being tired all day because the baby cries all night. But this is what happens, and as a manager you have to deal with it. Few "people problems" can be solved quickly, some are totally beyond your control and can only be contained; but you do have influence over many factors which affect your people and so it is your responsibility to ensure that your influence is a positive one.

You can only underestimate the impact which you personally have upon the habits and effectiveness of your group. As the leader of a team, you have the authority to sanction, encourage or restrict most aspects of their working day, and this places you in a position of power - and responsibility. This article looks briefly at your behaviour and at what motivates people, because by understanding these you can adapt yourself and the work environment so that your team and the company are both enriched. Since human psychology is a vast and complex subject, we do not even pretend to explain it. Instead, the article then outlines a simple model of behaviour and a systematic approach to analysing how you can exert your influence to help your team to work.

Behaviour

Consider your behaviour. Consider the effect you would have if every morning after coffee you walked over to Jimmy's desk and told him what he was doing wrong. Would Jimmy feel pleased at your attention? Would he look forward to these little chats and prepare simple questions to clarify aspects of his work? Or would he develop a Pavlovian hatred for coffee and be busy elsewhere whenever you pass by? Of course you would never be so destructive - provided you thought about it. And you must; for many seemingly simple habits can have a huge impact upon your rapport with your team.

Take another example: suppose (as a good supportive manager) you often give public praise for independence and initiative displayed by your team, and suppose (as a busy manager) you respond brusquely to questions and interruptions; think about it, what will happen?

Probably your team will leave you alone. They will not raise problems (you will be left in the dark), they will not question your instructions (ambiguities will remain), they will struggle on bravely (and feel unsupported). Your simple behaviour may result in a quagmire of errors, mis-directed activity and utter frustration. So if you do want to hear about problems, tell the team so and react positively when you hear of problems in-time rather than too-late.

Motivation

When thinking about motivation it is important to take the long-term view. What you need is a sustainable approach to maintain enthusiasm and commitment from your team. This is not easy; but it is essential to your effectiveness.

Classic work on motivation was undertaken by F. Herzberg in the 1950's when he formulated the "Motivation-Hygiene" theory. Herzberg identified several factors, such as salary levels, working conditions and company policy, which demotivated (by being poor) rather that motivated (by being good). For example, once a fair level of pay is established, money ceases to be a significant motivator for long term performance. Herzberg called these the "Hygiene" factors to apply the analogy that if the washrooms are kept clean, no one cares if they are scrubbed even harder. The point is that you can not enhance your team's performance through these Hygiene factors - which is fortunate since few team leaders have creative control over company organization or remuneration packages. What you can influence is the local environment and particularly the way in which you interact with your team.

The positive motivators identified by Herzberg are: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. These are what your team needs; loads-o-money is nice but not nearly as good as being valued and trusted.

Achievement

As the manager, you set the targets - and in selecting these targets, you have a dramatic effect upon your team's sense of achievement. If you make them too hard, the team will feel failure; if too easy, the team feels little. Ideally, you should provide a series of targets which are easily recognised as stages towards the ultimate completion of the task. Thus progress is punctuated and celebrated with small but marked achievements. If you stretch your staff, they know you know they can meet that challenge.

Recognition

Recognition is about feeling appreciated. It is knowing that what you do is seen and noted, and preferably by the whole team as well as by you, the manager. In opposite terms, if people do something well and then feel it is ignored - they will not bother to do it so well next time (because "no one cares").

The feedback you give your team about their work is fundamental to their motivation. They should know what they do well (be positive), what needs improving (be constructive) and what is expected of them in the future (something to aim at). And while this is common sense, ask yourself how many on your team know these things, right now? Perhaps more importantly, for which of your team could you write these down now (try it)?

Your staff need to know where they stand, and how they are performing against your (reasonable) expectations. You can achieve this through a structured review system, but such systems often become banal formalities with little or no communication. The best time to give feedback is when the event occurs. Since it can impact greatly, the feedback should be honest, simple, and always constructive. If in doubt, follow the simple formula of:

1. highlight something good
2. point out what needs improving
3. suggest how to improve

You must always look for something positive to say, if only to offer some recognition of the effort which has been put into the work. When talking about improvements, be specific: this is what is wrong, this is what I want/need, this is how you should work towards it. Never say anything as unhelpful or uninformative as "do better" or "shape up" - if you cannot be specific and say how, then keep quiet. While your team will soon realize that this IS a formula, they will still enjoy the benefits of the information (and training). You must not stint in praising good work. If you do not acknowledge it, it may not be repeated simply because no one knew you approved.

The work itself

The work itself should be interesting and challenging. Interesting because this makes your staff actually engage their attention; challenging because this maintains the interest and provides a sense of personal achievement when the job is done. But few managers have only interesting, challenging work to distribute: there is always the boring and mundane to be done. This is a management problem for you to solve. You must actually consider how interesting are the tasks you assign and how to deal with the boring ones. Here are two suggestions.

Firstly, make sure that everyone (including yourself) has a share of the interesting and of the dull. This is helped by the fact that what is dull to some might be new and fascinating to others - so match tasks to people, and possibly share the worst tasks around. For instance, taking minutes in meetings is dull on a weekly basis but quite interesting/educational once every six weeks (and also heightens a sense of responsibility). Secondly, if the task is dull perhaps the method can be changed - by the person given the task. This turns dull into challenging, adds responsibility, and might even improve the efficiency of the team.

Responsibility

Of all of Herzberg's positive motivators, responsibility is the most lasting. One reason is that gaining responsibility is itself seen as an advancement which gives rise to a sense of achievement and can also improve the work itself: a multiple motivation! Assigning responsibility is a difficult judgement since if the person is not confident and capable enough, you will be held responsible for the resulting failure. Indeed, delegating responsibility deserves another article in itself (see the article on Delegation).

Advancement

There are two types of advancement: the long-term issues of promotion, salary rises, job prospects; and the short-term issues (which you control) of increased responsibility, the acquisition of new skills, broader experience. Your team members will be looking for the former, you have to provide the latter and convince them that these are necessary (and possibly sufficient) steps for the eventual advancement they seek. As a manager, you must design the work assignment so that each member of the team feels: "I'm learning, I'm getting on".

Problems

We are going to look at a simple system for addressing people-problems. It is a step-by-step procedure which avoids complex psychological models (which few managers can/should handle) and which focuses upon tangible (and so controllable) quantities.

One work of warning: this technique is often referred to as Behavioural Modification (BM) and many balk at the connotations of management-directed mind control. Do not worry. We are simply recognising that staff behaviour IS modified by the work environment and by your influence upon it. The technique is merely a method for analysing that influence to ensure that it is positive and to focus it to best use.

In any group of people there are bound to be problems - as a manager, you have to solve or at least contain them. You ignore them at your peril. Such problems are usually described in terms like: "Alex is just lazy" or "Brenda is a bad-tempered old has-been". On the one hand, such people can poison the working environment; the other hand, these descriptions are totally unhelpful.

The underlying philosophy of BM is that you should concentrate upon specific, tangible actions over which you have influence. For instance "Alex is lazy" should be transformed into "Alex is normally late with his weekly report and achieves less than Alice does in any one week". Thus we have a starting point and something which can be measured. No generalities; only specific, observable behaviour.

Before proceeding, it is worth checking that the problem is real - some "problems" are more appearance than substance, some are not worth you time and effort. So, stage 1 is to monitor the identified problem to check that it is real and to seek simple explanations. For instance Alex might still be helping someone with his old job.

Stage 2 is often missed - ask Alex for his solution. This sort of interview can be quite difficult because you run the danger of making personal criticism. Now you may feel that Alex deserves criticism, but does it actually help? Your objective is to get Alex to work well, not to indulge in personal tyranny. If you make it personal, Alex will be defensive. He will either deny the problem, blame someone else, blame the weather, tell you that he knows best or some combination of the above. If, on the other hand, you present the situation in terms of the specific events, you can focus upon Alex's own view of the problem (why is this happening?) and Alex's own solution (what can Alex do about it - can you help?).

Stage 2 will sometimes be sufficient. If Alex had not realised there was a problem, he might act quickly to solve it. If he had thought his behaviour would pass unnoticed, he now knows differently. By giving Alex the responsibility for solving his own problem, you can actually motivate him beyond the specific problem: he may suggest on improved reporting system, or a short training course to deal with a technical short-coming. Finally, the demonstration alone that you are interested in Alex's work may be enough to make him improve. Never assume that you know better, always ask first - then if no solution is forthcoming, proceed to ...

Stage 3 is the analysis stage and is based upon a simple model of behaviour: every action is preceded by a trigger, and is followed by a consequence or payoff. Thus baby is hungry (trigger), baby wails (action), baby gets fed (payoff); or the report is due today (trigger), Alex goes for coffee break "to think about it" (action), Alex has a relaxing afternoon (payoff).

Sometimes, good behaviour is blocked by negative payoffs. For instance, if every time Clive informs his boss Diane about a schedule change (action), Diane vents her annoyance on Clive (payoff), then Clive will be less inclined to approach Diane with information in the future. One of the problems with communication in Ancient Greece was that the bearer of bad news was often executed.

Once you have analysed the problem, stage 4 is to find a solution. With most people-problems at work, you will find that the "bad" behaviour is reinforced by a payoff which that person finds attractive. There are two solutions: 1) modify the payoff either by blocking it, or by adding another consequence which is negative, or 2) create a positive payoff for the alternative, desired "good" behaviour. In the long term, the latter is preferable since it is better for motivation to offer encouragement rather than reprimand; optimally you should implement both.

This is where you have to be creative. BM provides a manageable focus and a framework for analysis; you, as manager, must provide the solution. It is best to work on one problem at a time because this simplifies the analysis. Further, by addressing one, other related problems are often affected also. Let us consider "late reporting". Firstly, add a negative consequence to Alex's current behaviour. State explicitly that you need the report by 3.30 on Friday (so that you can prepare your weekly schedule update) - and, if this does not happen, summon Alex at four o'clock to demand the report before he leaves for the weekend. This will probably ruin his "hour before the weekend" and he will wish to avoid it. Secondly, if Alex does get the report in by 3.30 make a habit of responding to it on Monday morning: if there is an issue raised, help Alex to solve it; if there is a schedule change, talk it over - but make it clear (say it) that you are only able to do this because you had time on Friday to read over his report. Thus Alex learns that he will receive help and support IF he gets the report in on time.

Stage 5 is necessary because such plans do not always work. You must continue to monitor the problem and after a trial period, review your progress. If the plan is working, continue; if the plan has failed, devise a new one; if the plan has worked, look for a new problem to solve.

Where to Seek Solutions

The range of problems is so large, that it is impossible to offer more than generalities as advise. Each person is different, each situation is different, so each solution must be carefully crafted. This being said, here are a few ideas.

Look for aspects of motivation - any problem which stems from lack of commitment or interest can only successfully be addressed by providing motivation, and any of the motivators described earlier can be applied.

Be flexible with regards to personal problems. No parent is immune to the "joys" of a new born baby, no one is uneffected by bereavement. When circumstances and the human factor impinge upon your ordered plans, adapt; since you cannot change it, work with it. Focus upon the problem (say, schedule slippage) and deal with that in the existing situation. For instance if you sanction half a day's "sick-leave" to see a solicitor, you might save a week's worry and distraction.

On a larger scale, look carefully at the "systems" which exist in your team, at those work practices which you and they follow through habit. Some of these can work against you, and the team. For instance, the way you hold team meetings may suppress contributions (at 4 o'clock on a Friday, say); the way you reward the exceptional may demotivate those responsible for the mundane.

Take a long term view. Constant pressure will eventually destroy your team members. If you acknowledge that a relaxed yet engaged workforce is (say) 10% more efficient than one which is over-stressed and fretful, then you should realize that this amounts to half-a-day per week. So why not devote half-a-day to: peer-group teaching, brainstorming on enhanced efficiency, visits to customers (internal and external), guest lectures on work tools, or all four on a four-weekly cycle. You lose nothing if you gain a skilled, committed, enthusiastic team.

Finally, look carefully at how you behave and whether the current situation is due to your previous inattention to the human factor: you might be the problem, and the solution.

Gerard M Blair is a Senior Lecturer in VLSI Design at the Department of Electrical Engineering, The University of Edinburgh. His book Starting to Manage: the essential skills is published by Chartwell-Bratt (UK) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA). He welcomes feedback either by email (gerard@ee.ed.ac.uk) or by any other method found here

MICROSOFT'S BALLMER: BILL'S CO-PILOT

After 18 years at Microsoft, is Steve Ballmer ready to be president?

It was vintage Steve Ballmer. Microsoft Corp.'s self-appointed cheerleader bounded onstage at the company's annual sales meeting in New Orleans on July 27 and shouted at the top of his lungs: ''I love this company! I love this company! I love this company!'' The 6,000-person sales team responded with a five-minute standing ovation. Then Ballmer whizzed through a 90-minute pep talk on the virtues of customer obsession, bringing the audience to its feet once more when he finished by playing a recording he listens to before every major milestone in his life: Dionne Warwick's I Say a Little Prayer.

Ballmer might need their prayers. After six years of running sales and support for the software giant, he has been elevated by CEO William H. Gates III to the position of president--in charge of both sales and product development--allowing Gates to focus more on technology and mapping out the company's future.

With this move, Steven A. Ballmer finally gets public recognition for the role he has long played at Microsoft: Bill Gates's co-pilot. Together, the two college chums have spent 18 years forging a fiercely competitive company unmatched in computerdom. Gates has been the company's big brain and Ballmer its wildly thumping heart, inspiring the troops as no one else can. Now, while Gates remains CEO and point man in the company's antitrust battle with the Justice Dept., it's up to Ballmer to run day-to-day operations at a juncture that's as crucial as any in the company's history.

Microsoft is under fire from all sides--not just from Justice but from tough competitors such as IBM and Sun Microsystems Inc. To sustain a blistering 28% yearly growth rate, Microsoft must succeed in markets far afield from its dominance in desktop computing. That means persuading corporate customers that Microsoft's software can be trusted to run their most vital operations. At the same time, Microsoft is pushing its Windows software into everything from cars to building alarms to telephones. And the company must transform its Web sites, which lost $300 million last year, into moneymakers.

GIMLET-EYED. In many ways, the 42-year-old Detroit native is tailor-made for the job. While Gates is the company's technology visionary, Ballmer is its top business strategist. He earned his stripes by building Microsoft's sales operation into a major-league force in corporate computing. He has had every major management job at Microsoft, and he has the kind of gimlet-eyed financial discipline necessary to pick apart the flaws in any ailing business plan.

Already, Ballmer is sending hundreds of product engineers out to learn from corporate customers what Microsoft needs to do to help solve their computing problems. He is doing sit-downs with some 100 employees to ferret out what's happening with product development. And he is boning up on what makes a Web site a hit. Look for him to whip into shape the company's E-commerce operations by boosting revenues and pruning unnecessary costs.

Ballmer's omnipresent intensity should help. He's larger and louder than life--6 feet tall, built like a linebacker, with a huge, balding head and a booming voice. Despite his stock options worth some $6 billion, he's not easing off one bit, and responds with bug-eyed indignity to rumors he was considering retirement before getting his promotion. ''That's just not true,'' he says. He's the kind of guy who, while jogging, charges up hills--gutting out the pain.

At home, too, Ballmer's devotion is boundless. He tries to be there to put his two young sons to bed every night. And when his parents became ill with cancer last summer, he moved them to Seattle and took 12 weeks off from work to care for them. ''Not too many senior executives will just drop out like that for their family,'' says Mike Maples, a former Microsoft executive vice-president who is now retired.

But Ballmer's intensity has a dark side. He can sometimes be a hothead whose emotions get the better of him. He can be rough on people who work for him, bawling them out so violently that his voice can be heard through the vents at Microsoft's Redmond (Wash.) headquarters. And sometimes, Ballmer blurts out public comments that simply do not become a company president.

Gates--no diplomat himself--doesn't hold Ballmer's shortcomings against him. The two have been close friends since they met as undergraduates at Harvard University. Later, in 1980, Gates persuaded Ballmer to drop out of Stanford University's business school to help run a fledgling Microsoft that was growing so fast it was nearly out of control. Ballmer was the company's first nonengineer, and Gates valued his management experience at Procter & Gamble Co., where he helped market cake mixes.

Even today, they spend hours together talking over their frustrations and dreams. ''He's my best friend,'' says Gates. ''We love working together on very hard problems. We trust each other and understand how the other one thinks.'' Ballmer's affection for Gates runs just as deep. ''Our friendship has grown much stronger as a result of working together. It's like a marriage,'' says Ballmer. In an interview last fall he said Microsoft's vaunted long-term approach to business emerged partly because he and Gates ''wanted to prove our commitment to one another.''

But where Gates calculates his moves, Ballmer simply makes them. ''Steve's invention is: Don't have an elegant plan. Do the smart, obvious thing. Then fix it as you go,'' says Peter Neupert, a former Microsoft executive who is now CEO of Drugstore.com.

As president, Ballmer will have to be more judicious--and diplomatic. ''He's proven he can be General Patton,'' says Paul A. Maritz, Microsoft's group vice-president for products. ''Now, he has to be more like Eisenhower.'' Ballmer is working on that. On Aug. 6, he ventured into hostile territory to meet with the CEOs of 10 Silicon Valley startups intent on persuading them to see Microsoft as an ally. ''I was impressed,'' says Naveen Bisht, CEO of Ukiah Software Inc. in Campbell, Calif. Ballmer even promised to call venture capitalists on their behalf.

TO THE RESCUE. Mostly, though, Ballmer's new job keeps him close to home and focusing on his two new priorities: making sure all the company's businesses are operating at peak performance and notching up Microsoft's dedication to customer satisfaction. ''I'm going to dial up my focus on delighting customers,'' he says.

That may sound like so much marketing hooey, but Ballmer is in earnest. Some customers say they rarely meet a software executive so attuned to their needs. Richard Schell, vice-president of information systems at ABC in New York, says Ballmer came to the rescue when he ran into technical problems after switching to Microsoft's Windows NT software three years ago. And two years ago, after Schell suggested a change in Microsoft's basic licensing agreement during a Microsoft-sponsored gathering of corporate customers, Ballmer convened a meeting on the spot and resolved the issue by the next morning. ''I find it very comforting that within the huge domain of Microsoft they have such a senior person who is so sensitive to customer needs,'' says Schell.

Obviously, it's not altruism that drives Ballmer. He understands that for Microsoft to keep up its sizzling growth, it has to make customers out of millions of people who don't use PCs now, plus find compelling reasons for corporations to buy upgrades. Part of it is getting products out the door faster--like the tardy upgrade of Windows NT. But most crucially, Microsoft's products need to get much easier to use and manage.

To help achieve that goal, Ballmer has budgeted an extra $250 million this year to increase the company's consulting and support staffs by 25% each and pay for technical seminars for 2.3 million small consultants and software developers. Also, Ballmer plans to send engineers out to learn from customers. It's not just about figuring out the latest feature to put into Windows NT, the network operating system that's the basis for Microsoft's corporate-computing strategy. Ballmer wants to understand where the gaps are in the entire product line. ''It's a blitz session to dig in and hear what's out there,'' he says.

But boosting traditional software sales won't be enough to keep Microsoft's revenues soaring. Ballmer is looking hard at the company's Interactive Media Group (IMG), which has had some hits, such as its Expedia travel site, but has failed to make the Microsoft Network online service a major force in cyberspace. Now it's trying to emulate Yahoo! by transforming MSN into a so-called portal site that serves as a doorway to the Web and routes customers to Microsoft's own travel, investment, and shopping sites.

WEB HEMORRHAGE. To get himself up to speed on the portal business, Ballmer took what he calls a ''crash course'' during three days of talks in June with advertisers and ad agencies in Chicago and New York. While he thinks revenues should be growing faster, he supports the company's high level of investment in Web sites. ''The quibbles are about what's the appropriate target for payoff,'' he says. Financial analysts, though, are losing patience with the profitless Web ventures. ''Red West should be called Red Ink,'' scoffs David Readerman of NationsBanc Montgomery Securities Inc.--referring to the satellite office where those businesses are located in Redmond, Wash.

Pete Higgins, head of the IMG group, is not expecting conflicts with his new boss. ''He's hard on budgets, but so am I,'' Higgins says. Ballmer says his new job isn't so much to root out problems as to nip them in the bud. ''Nothing's wrong,'' he says. ''But many things could go wrong if we don't prepare today.''

It's just that kind of edginess that started Gates on the path to appointing Ballmer president. In a memo to the board of directors and top execs last December, Gates revealed his frustrations. Less than half of his time was spent thinking about technology. And he was concerned that Microsoft was becoming too bureaucratic. Then there was the Justice investigation--which resulted in a May lawsuit charging Microsoft with anticompetitive business practices. ''He was feeling a bit overwhelmed and not having as much fun as in the past,'' says board member Jon A. Shirley, who was Microsoft's president for much of the 1980s.

Still, it took more than six months for the board to settle on making Ballmer president. One hangup was his fiery personality. ''Steve's greatest strength can also be seen as a weakness,'' says board member and Ballmer friend David Marquardt. Ballmer shouts when he gets excited or angry--his voice rising so suddenly that it's like an electric shock. ''That could be intimidating to people who didn't have a lot of self-esteem,'' says Scott McGregor, a Windows development manager in the mid-1980s who is now a top executive at Philips Semiconductors. By the early 1990s, Ballmer had to have throat surgery to fix problems brought on by shouting.

OOPS FACTOR. Then there was the Janet Reno incident. Last fall, in front of reporters, he made the colossal blunder of sneering ''To heck with Janet Reno!'' after the Justice Dept. sued Microsoft. That comment made headlines and hurt Microsoft's already battered image. Ballmer says he deeply regrets the comment. ''That's the way I am,'' he says. ''I have to work on being a better version of myself.''

According to Shirley, Gates cleared the way for Ballmer's promotion by making sure each of the executives who would report to him was satisfied with the arrangement and by convincing the board that he could modify his behavior. That may be sorely tested in coming days when Justice Dept. attorneys grill Ballmer in a deposition. So far, though, he is one of the few top Microsoft executives who has not been portrayed as a bad guy in government filings.

Ballmer's friends forgive his excesses, and even some Microsoft critics are willing to cut him slack. ''I find him refreshing. There's a joy and love of life about him,'' says Ken Wasch, director of the Software Publishers Assn. Ballmer is affable most of the time. He cracks jokes and laughs and says things such as ''Oo la la!'' People warm up to him because he has an incredible knack for remembering their names--and even their kids' ages.

Most of all, Ballmer is an all-around good sport--always up for company high jinks and publicity stunts. He swam across a chilly Microsoft campus pond in November, 1988, on a dare. And last year, he and Gates portrayed a couple of buddies out for a drive in a video spoof of a Volkswagen ad that was shown at public-relations events. They picked up a Sun Microsystems computer from the side of the road--then unloaded it after they noticed a stench.

What drives this unconventional exec? As a child, Ballmer was keen on pleasing a mother he adored and a demanding Russian immigrant father. His father, who worked in accounting at Ford Motor Co., didn't go to college, and Ballmer can remember being told in no uncertain terms when he was eight that he would attend Harvard. His dad had a relentless work ethic and urged young Steve and his kid sister to buckle down. ''He'd always say 'If you're going to do a job, do the job,''' Ballmer recalls. And he remembers that his grandfather, a veteran of the czarist army who sold used auto parts, gave him a $6-per-month allowance, but insisted that he turn it over to his mother--perhaps the genesis of Ballmer's legendary tightfistedness at Microsoft.

MATH WHIZ. Ballmer wasn't always so bold. He was shy as a child--so much so, he remembers, that he hyperventilated before heading off to Hebrew school. He only became confident once he got used to new people and situations. As a scholarship student at Detroit Country Day School, he was a spirited--if mediocre--defensive tackle on the Yellow Jackets football team. Childhood friend Steve Pollack, the team's all-state center, bested him every time during scrimmages. ''But Steve would never give up. He'd keep coming and coming,'' says Pollack.

Ballmer turned out to be a math whiz--ranking in the top 10 among Michigan high schoolers on a statewide test--helping him achieve his father's dream, a Harvard education. There, he got his start as a leader--as manager of the football team, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper, and the literary magazine. But it was his hookup with schoolmate Bill Gates that sealed his fate as a future captain of industry.

They lived at opposite ends of a dormitory floor--but their shared passions for math and science brought them together. They teamed up to study and competed fiercely at trivia games and in academics. Ballmer still rues the day Gates outscored him with a final test grade of 99 to Ballmer's 97 in a macroeconomics course for which neither of them attended a single class. The competitive jousting continues to this day. Gates and Ballmer recently brought a staff meeting to a temporary halt while they tussled over exactly how much bigger BellSouth is than US West.

These days, Ballmer's commitment to Microsoft matches that of Gates. Sometimes, he'll handle overseas business reviews from 7 a.m. one morning to 2 a.m. the next. And no marketing stunt is too wacky. Take the time he dressed in a baseball outfit for the launch of Office 97 at Club El Nogal, a nightclub in baseball-crazy Bogota, Colombia. With the mention of each new product feature, he was to throw a pitch to professional ballplayers standing in the audience. But one of his tosses smacked a customer in the head. Ballmer jumped off the stage and rushed to the stricken man--who was not seriously injured.

While there are occasional misfires, Ballmer's intensity usually delivers. One example: the sales organization. When he took charge in 1992, Microsoft did little more than advertise, ship products to distributors, and wish them luck. Ballmer segmented the market into six categories--such as consumers and large corporations--and built organizations to address each of them.

SALES SAVVY. In the corporate market, Ballmer decided that Microsoft should not try to copy IBM's strategy of building huge direct-sales and consulting operations. Instead, it would make allies of thousands of consultants, resellers, and systems integrators who would carry its products to many more customers than IBM could ever reach. ''He saw the power of the many,'' says Judy Sims, CEO of reseller Software Spectrum Inc. The result: Microsoft's enterprise sales organization reached $4 billion in revenues last fiscal year--up about 40% in each of the past three years.

Ballmer also cultivated the software companies that specialize in enterprise applications, such as manufacturing and inventory programs--persuading them to build their products on top of Windows NT. Says Paul Wahl, CEO of corporate software maker SAP America Inc.: ''Steve spotted early that he needed SAP to make NT a success--to demonstrate that it was really ready for prime time.'' Ballmer offered engineering help, and SAP agreed to port its R/3 suite of enterprise applications to Windows NT. It was a win for both companies: SAP installations that are built on top of NT went from zero to 55% in four years.

Ballmer is relentless when it comes to closing a sale, too. Two years ago, after Boeing Co. told Microsoft it planned to choose Lotus Notes over its Exchange E-mail program, Ballmer called an emergency meeting of salespeople and engineers and told them this would be a test of Microsoft's ability to be a corporate computing player. Some 72 hours of nonstop strategizing and software coding ultimately changed Boeing's mind. Now, the aircraft giant is Microsoft's largest E-mail customer--putting Exchange on more than 200,000 computers. ''It just came down to them committing to make it work,'' says Daniel Smith, Boeing's liaison with Microsoft.

Ballmer has come a long way as a manager during his stint in sales. Previously, he ran product development--with mixed results. After taking over Windows in 1984, he drove engineers relentlessly to meet an autumn, 1985, launch deadline, but when Windows 1.0 was released, it flopped. It took Ballmer six more years to produce Windows 3.1--which finally took the world by storm.

People who worked for Ballmer in the 1980s say he didn't understand the development process well enough to manage a product group well. But he has picked up a lot of technical knowledge since then. ''The man says he's not technical, but if you tell him something now, he'll remember it at every meeting after that when it comes up,'' says Richard Tong, vice-president for marketing in the applications division.

But back when the president's position came open in 1992, after Michael R. Hallman left, the board passed Ballmer over--creating a three-person Office of the President. ''There was general agreement between Bill and the rest of us that we wanted him to mature some more--to prove he could handle a large group of people who weren't developers,'' says board member Shirley.

Ballmer passed that test. Now, he has another mountain to climb as Microsoft's president. While he doesn't have a master plan yet, he wants whatever he does to make the 27,200-person company more nimble. His model: the way Microsoft changed direction to catch up with the Internet wave. ''Problem! Brainpower invoked! Solution! Execution! Go for it!'' he says, pounding his fist into his palm for emphasis. ''If we can just work that way every day, we'll be able to get out ahead.''

Ballmer might well be able to keep up that relentless level of intensity. But if he overdoes it, he risks alienating the veteran managers who report to him. His challenge is to find just the right mix of urgency and deliberation. And that's got to be tough for a guy who accelerates when he runs up hills.

By Steve Hamm in Redmond, Wash.

Creating a Motivational Work Environment

The idea for this article is from two observations I made working with hundreds of management teams.

1. All people are self-motivated.
2. The mark of a good manager is not what the employees do when the manager is around, but what they do when the manager is NOT around.

Case in point. My spouse, Cindy, goes to work for a major super market chain as a grocery checker. Before she starts her job, she attends educational programs in what she calls "smile" and "scan" school. There she learns about the history of the company, scanning procedures and friendly customer service skills.

One of the company's key requirements for a checker is to scan each item separately. In other words, no scanning one item, then multiplying it by the number counted.

Her first assignment after school is to work with a checker who has 15 years’ experience, training by her side and assisting as needed. While Cindy is working the register, a lady comes up with ten cans of the same brand of dog food. Cindy starts scanning the items one at a time. The experienced clerk stopped her and to her to just scan one item and then multiply it times the total number of cans. Dilemma for the new checker, who is right?

After a week at the training store, Cindy is goes to her permanent store. How do you think she scans items when she is on the job? It depends on whether or not there is a manager present.

What makes a person motivated to want to do a job the way designed when there is no supervisor or manager present?

First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as one person motivating another. All people are self motivated. A person decides if they "want" to do the job as designed or not. You can always gauge a person's motivation based on the quality of results achieved and how those results accomplished. Since we are dealing with humans, them we have to consider that this is an emotional concern.

However, people do "inspire" other people. So, the only role a manager has in this process of motivating employees is to set up conditions in the work environment that will "inspire" employees to "want" to do the job properly.

A manager’s style of communication and interaction with the staff creates the daily working relationship between the manager and the staff, as well as how the staff will treat each other. This is the heart of the working environment.

If the staff has a manager that is critical and fault finding, then the staff will be critical and faultfinding with each other. Making sure they do not get nailed by the manager at the expense of someone else’s mistake. CYA (Cover Your Assets) becomes the motto to live by.

A manager’s management style usually falls into one of these categories:

1. Dictator -- "I am ultimately responsible for the success of this department, and my butt is on the line for your actions. You do what I say, when I say, as I say . . . no questions asked. My way or the highway."
2. Coach -- "I know my success is limited by your success when you are working together and with customers. What do you need in education, support, feedback or equipment to do your job well? What are your ideas on how to do your job better or improve the department as a whole? We can only win as a team."

It is also important to have a "team leader aligned with the manager as a role model and support when the manager is not around. Also, a team leader may not necessarily your best performer, but someone who can organize people to work well together..

Too often manager’s operate out of the "Dictator" mode. Most received no training or had a role model to show them a different way. Others just assumed that is how manages people. Hey, being a manager is a tough job, but someone has to do it. For a manager to move to the third style of management, the manager has to understand who controls the destiny of the company.

In the average organizational model, there is a person at the top, owner, CEO, GM, etc., whose perceived responsibility is to guarantee the success and profitability of the organization. They are like the captain of a ship, using navigational tools to move the ship through safe waters. However, the only navigational tool this captain uses is the P&L statement. If the P&L statement is lousy, then it is the captain's job to correct the course of the ship.

The CEO immediately meets with the people hired to make sure their departments are profitable -- the mid-management team. In this meeting, the CEO gives an inspirational speech to help the mid-management team understand that their job security directly relates to their ability to make more money in their department. He gives them guidelines about being tougher with their people, push them harder and clean house of the goof-offs, etc.

These highly inspired mid-managers immediately call a meeting with their staff. They carry forth the same message -- "I am going to stay on top of you people till you produce, if you lazy SOBs cannot produce, I will find someone who will." The sad part about this meeting is that everyone in the department is getting the same message, the good performers and the bad performers.

During the meeting, the good performers are sitting there thinking, "I bust my ass for this company and all I am told is that it is not good enough, this is screwed!". So they get a "give-a-damn" attitude. The bad performers whine because there are no donuts for the meeting and think the meeting is just another dumb, knee-jerk response by the manager after getting his butt chewed by the big guy. Boring!

Unfortunately, we now have a very highly motivated department, but motivated to what kind of job?

To keep up the pressure, the manager really starts watching the numbers, the actions of the staff, and immediately starts jumping on people who are screwing up. The manager has become what I call a "SCUD Missile Manager." ("SCUD" missiles used during the Gulf War. It had a lousy tracking system and tended to just blow up anywhere.) This is a manager who is under a lot of pressure to produce. This person is liable to blow up at anything, anywhere, anytime, especially in front of other employees or customers to add more pressure.

This type of management is distracting to the employees, because every time they see the "SCUD Missile Manager" roaming around, they wonder if they are about to be the next target. This becomes more distracting when they are working with a customer, because the actions of the "SCUD Missile Manager" are more important to them than the customer. So now we have a customer being serviced by a distracted employee. The customer does not get the service expected so they leave, never to return again.

In all of this, the customer is the final receiver of these inspirational meetings from owner to mid-manager to employee. The last irony is when the P&L statement shows more continuing financial problems, the cycle starts again.

To me, the highest indicator of Customer Satisfaction is the customer's desire to spend money with the company. However, the person who has the most control over Customer Satisfaction is the person who directly serves the customer, not the manager or CEO’s brilliant marketing or management plan. Their job is to take care of the people who take care of the customer. I am talking about a managerial form of what goes around comes around.

Let's face it, the best ad a company has is the actual one-on-one experience between the customer and its employee. Employees will only treat customers the way treated by their management.

Copyright, 1997, J. Daniel Emmanuel

Management Tips

L1: Fix the problem, not the blame. It is far more productive, and less expensive, to figure out what to do to fix a problem that has come up than it is to waste time trying to decide who's fault it was.

L2: Tell people what you want, not how to do it. You will find people more responsive and less defensive if you can give them guidance not instructions. You will also see more initiative, more innovation, and more of an ownership attitude from them develop over time.

L3: Manage the function, not the paperwork. Remember that your job is to manage a specific function within the company, whatever that may be. There is a lot of paperwork that goes with the job, but don't let that distract you from your real responsibility.

L4: Don't DO Anything. Your job as a manager is to "plan, organize, control and direct." Don't let yourself waste valuable time by falling back on what you did before you became a manager. We know you enjoy it and you are good at it. That's why you were promoted. Now you need to concentrate your efforts on managing, not on "doing".

L5: You never have to make up for a good start. If a project or a job gets off to a bad start it can be difficult to catch up. Do your planning up front so you get a good start and you won't regret it.

L6: Get out of your office. Management By Walking Around (MBWA) does work. You make yourself more approachable. You get information first-hand. You find out what's really happening.

L7: Lead by example. If you ask your employees to work overtime, be there too. Just because company policy allows it, don't fly first-class if your associates are in coach on the same plane. Be a leader - it's tougher than being a manager, but it's worth it.

L8: Delegate the easy stuff. The things you do well are the things to delegate. Hold on to those that are challenging and difficult. That is how you will grow.

L9: Don't get caught up in 'looking good'. "Work happily together. Don't try to act big. Don't try to get into the good graces of important people, but enjoy the company of ordinary folks. And don't think you know it all. Never pay back evil for evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honest clear through."

L10: 'Quality' is just conformance to requirements. You get the behavior you critique for, so set your standards and then require conformance to them. Quality will come from that effort, not from slogans, posters, or even threats.

L11: Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.

L12: Set S.M.A.R.T. Goals. Goals you set for yourself, or others, should be Specific, Measurable, Achieveable, Realistic, and Time-based.

Greenpeace offer to save stricken whaler

Efforts continued today to save a disabled Japanese whaling ship which caught fire off the Antarctic coast, after an offer of help by the environmental group Greenpeace was rejected.

Japanese officials said the 8,000-ton Nisshin Maru - left without engine power and carrying hundreds of thousands of litres of oil - posed no environmental threat.

Other ships from the whaling fleet have been helping to stabilise the ship and fight the blaze, which broke out yesterday and has left a crewman missing, presumed dead.

Greenpeace had said it was willing to send its ship the Esperanza - in the Southern Ocean to try to stop the whale hunt - to help.

The expedition's leader, Karli Thomas, said: "Our first thoughts are for the missing crewman and the rest of the people on board. This is not a time to play politics."

But Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for the Institute of Cetacean Research which runs Japan's whaling programme, told the Associated Press news agency: "The whole Greenpeace offer is a red herring. Their assistance is not required and will not be accepted."

A spokesman for the Japanese fisheries agency said Greenpeace had not been in touch, though the Nisshin Maru might have refused help because the ship was boarded by Greenpeace activists in New Caledonia in 1998.

The Nisshin Maru has been lashed between two other ships to stop it drifting ice while crew members fight to contain the fire below deck.

A spokesman for New Zealand's maritime agency told Reuters reporters that fears of an oil or chemical spillwere had eased after the crew managed to pump away excess water and correct the list to the ship.

It is not yet known whether the vessel will be able to restart its engines. It has been wallowing without power, less than 100 miles from the world's largest Adelie penguin colony, in an area known for stormy weather.

Anti-whaling activists have not been linked with the fire, which could put an end to the whaling season if the ship remains inoperable.

Passengers overpower hijacker

Passengers overpowered a hijacker who had commandeered a Mauritanian plane when he was knocked off his feet during a hard landing, a source close to the Mauritanian presidency said.

The Air Mauritania Boeing 737 was on a domestic flight with 71 passengers and eight crew members when the hijacker, armed with pistols, demanded to be flown to France, officials said. The pilot landed in Spain's Canary Islands instead, where police arrested the suspect.

The pilot "deliberately braked very hard" and the man fell, the Mauritanian source said. A spokeswoman for the Spanish emergency services said 20 people suffered minor cuts and bruises.

UNICEF: U.S., British children worst off in industrialized world

BERLIN - The United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey released Wednesday evaluating the well-being of children in wealthy countries.
The Netherlands topped the report issued by UNICEF, followed by other European countries with strong social welfare systems - Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
Among the report’s overall findings was that wealth alone did not guarantee a child’s well-being, with some poorer countries scoring ahead of richer ones. The U.S. and Britain finished 20th and 21st overall, respectively, behind Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The British government immediately criticized the report, saying it used old data that did not measure recent improvements in things like teen pregnancies.

UNICEF ranked 21 industrialized countries in six categories: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and young people’s own subjective sense of well-being.
The U.S. was last for health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, immunization, and deaths from accidents and injuries.
Britain was last in the family and peer relationships ranking, which measured such things as the rate of single-parent families and whether families ate the main meal of the day together more than once a week.
Britain also finished at the bottom in behaviors and risks, which considered factors such as the percentage of children who ate breakfast, consumed fruit regularly, were overweight, used drugs or alcohol or were sexually active.
The U.S. was second from the bottom in both of those categories.
The British government said information used in the study did not take note of recent improvements in education, health and general living standards. Some of the statistics went back as far as 2000 or 2001, it said.
”In many cases the data used is several years old and does not reflect more recent improvements such as the continuing fall in the teenage pregnancy rate or in the proportion of children living in workless households,” said a spokeswoman for British Department for Education and Skills, on customary condition of anonymity.
She said reforms introduced to tackle ”teenage smoking, drinking, and risky sexual behavior ... are delivering improvements that are making real differences to children’s lives.”
Opposition Liberal Democrat lawmaker Annette Brooke said the report reflected a ”shameful level of child poverty” in Britain.
”It is shocking that we are doing so badly at bringing up our children,” Brooke said. ”Every child should be entitled to live in a stable, loving family environment.”
Marta Santos Pais, the study’s director, said future reports would devote even more energy to assessing how children perceive their own well-being and needs.
”Very often we base our assessment and governments shape their policies on the basis of what adults feel the policy measures are achieving,” she said. ”It’s always important to see how the beneficiaries of those policies are assessing the impact of the policies.”

Taking it easy with e-learning

WHAT can be better than watching lectures from the comfort of your own home? Many students rejoiced when e-learning week was introduced, as it implied that we would be having a holiday. But I thought otherwise.

Being inquisitive, I asked around for students’ feedback.Many gave a thumbs up, saying that e-learning was convenient, and pre-recorded lectures allowed for playback, which helped students who cannot keep up.

But there are also students like me, who recognise that e-learning will actually impede their studies because when it is so easy to gather academic material, it takes away the discipline of doing so.

Some are more down to earth. They talked about how e-learning meant missing out on cheap western food and the chance to bump into the occassional chio-bu.

As my own e-learning trial beckons, I cannot help but consider the implications.

For one, e-learning is supposed to reduce time wasted on travelling, hence increasing productivity. But it has also encouraged multi-tasking, leading to a lack of focus and less substantial work being done. Thus it all boils down to discipline.

With e-learning, students may need to exercise greater self control over their tendency to give in to distractions. Think of the times when you were supposed to find information for a report, only to end up reading blogs, or worse, posting comments on them.

Also, our academic culture here is such that students and professors do not really have close relationships, perhaps due to the reserved nature of students. Could online learning make this even worse, as it would remove real life interaction? But at the same time, studies have shown that reserved people communicate better online.

My personal take is that online communication can never replicate the vigour and immediacy of students shooting off a query or comment in class. While it helps to encourage students to discuss online, e-learning should not replace real-life interaction. It is best to integrate both.

E-learning also means that professors have less control over their students. For instance, in real life lectures, if lecturers see students sleeping, talking or not paying attention, this will indicate to them that they are not being engaging enough, or are boring.

Without this kind of feedback, online lectures can end up like a two-hour news broadcast, except that news broadcasters are usually more aesthetically pleasing.

Moreover, while students are encouraged to actively interact with classmates and professors online with e-learning through discussion boards, they may not bother. For with e-learning, students no longer need to deal with the awkward pauses, the serious gaze of the professor, and the pressure to break the stifl ing silence as the class awaits their answers.

Granted that the e-learning trial is meant to test the feasibility of home-based lectures in the case of a potential flu pandemic (although a haze crisis with a PSI of 200 is more applicable now), but it is a serious option to consider as we progress as a technogically advanced nation.

Plans to wire up the country with Wi-Fi access would only complement e-learning. And e-learning is the way to go for universities, as they seek to attract distance-learning students. In fact, NTU already lags
behind many universities when it comes to this.

But many of these universities still keep a real-life lecture style, for while e-learning is a good complement to the existing system and a convenient substitute in times of crises, it still has its disadvantages.

Ultimately, for all the perks e-learning offer, such as convenience and permanence of lecture material, it really depends on how students embrace the technology. If they remain sceptical and shun it, they will never realise its benefits.

Students who think that online learning reduces interaction, and therefore do not bother to interact online at all, are only shooting themselves in the foot.

Nevertheless, we should not get carried away with the desirability of e-learning. It is vital to get continuous feedback from students and faculty but not all subjects are suitable for it.

As my “Management with Humour” lecturer says: “For every solution implemented, you plant a seed of potential problems”. I cannot agree more.

Most importantly, the writer knows that if e-learning is implemented, he will never be able to bump into his mass comm chiobu. What’s more, he just got a feel of when her lectures are.