Leadership Skills for CAD Managers - Part 2

Barrie Mathews, Softco Engineering Systems Inc.
January 8, 2003

In Part 1 of this topic I offered a perspective on the kinds of managerial skills that are helpful to resolve conflicts, or the people problems, when you are implementing CAD Standards. In that installment, we focused on ways of getting your needs satisfied. In this installment, I will discuss management styles and their effects, and suggest when to use a particular approach and why.

Effective management means meeting your organization's objectives efficiently and harmoniously. Everything should go like clockwork without stress, aggravation or conflict with any of the parties involved. However, some degree of conflict arises in almost every endeavor, which in turn can lead to stress and aggravation. So the essence of good management comes down to how successful you are at reducing and resolving conflict.

There are boundaries within which a particular management concept is practical. Its application has to be lived and learned so you must decide for practicality, where those boundaries need to be defined while you learn. The difficulty is in knowing where and when to act. Most managers gravitate toward one of three approaches:

1. The manager is autocratic (unilateral decisions are made from the top down).
2. The manager is a leader and facilitator.
3. The manager is laissez-faire (sets general objectives but allows subordinates to solve problems among themselves).

While there are special circumstances in which a laissez-faire style is appropriate, as a general trait this style of management represents an abdication of responsibility because it avoids conflict; it's not really managing at all. So I will confine my discussion to approaches #1 and #2.

1. Aspects of the Autocratic Style

First, let's define what is and is not autocratic. For example, your job description likely calls for you to delegate work, determine the order of what is to be done in a given time frame and organize the necessary resources. Carrying out these tasks does not make you autocratic; you are simply fulfilling the responsibilities of your position according to the policies and decisions made by upper management. These policies and decisions aren't negotiable with your staff.

When we speak of the autocratic style, then, we are referring to those duties within your own authority and how you conduct yourself in carrying out that authority.

In his book, Leader Effectiveness Training L.E.T., Dr. Thomas Gordon categorizes three kinds of influence that may be available to you:

1. Authority (K) - where one has more knowledge
2. Authority (J) - delegated authority by way of your job definition
3. Authority (P) - where one has power

Provided this is not your first line of approach, I believe you may successfully be autocratic when using the first two kinds of influence constructively. In the context of offering advice, facts and experience, it is seldom disputed that you have the right to make arbitrary decisions involving matters in which you are recognized as having the superior expertise. The downside is that you have to be a programmer who gets it right the first time. So there are limits to the effectiveness of this approach. You will be consuming an enormous amount of your time instructing staff members how to do their jobs. If your staff is inexperienced, there is no choice. But if you do have a choice, it's best to state the objectives "what, why and when" using Authority (J).

When you have been given authority by way of your job definition, there are usually no problems as long as your staff understands it is your duty to decide such matters. To reinforce this, ask your senior manager to specifically advise staff that you have been assigned those responsibilities. When you use your influence, avoid any behavior that might be interpreted as arrogance. For example, many in authority will demand of a staff person, "I want you to ...." Instead, it is much more effective to say, "I need this done because ...." Your staff member knows you want this done, but you have left communications open for any problems to be raised. You follow up with "Will you ...." and "When ..." Then you have a done deal and any problems are resolved.

Those who have worked under an Authority (P) style of management, where power is exercised, yearn for the day when they are the "boss," because in that situation when any conflict arises they could just tell people how it's going to be, and that's that. But for this to work, you have to maintain a staff who is totally dependent upon you, who believe their good fortune depends on incurring your favor. Do you have such power, and does its expediency make it sensible to wield it? I think you can conclude that coercion by means of your power is doomed to failure - unless, perhaps, you have the freedom to fire someone in your CAD department each month. There are also other repercussions.

Using Authority (P) is a cop out, another way to avoid responsibly coping with management problems. And it exacts a heavy price to be paid later. Virtually no one accepts coercion without some resistance and retaliation, and there is no one without some power of their own. In an office environment, retaliation often takes the form of withholding information. All useful communication will stop, and you will only be told what you want to hear. How can you manage when you aren't told what is going on? To a request of yours a subordinate will say, "Sure, you're the boss," and then revel in the knowledge that you're on the wrong track simply because you're closed off to what's really happening. You'll spend countless hours worrying over your decisions and second-guessing what others are up to, and wasting time planning and enforcing actions that are destined to fail.

There are certain occasions when it might be acceptable to flex your power discreetly. For example, when you have a serious problem and have stated your case several times. In that case, someone else is exercising their power over you by consciously choosing to ignore your wishes. In those cases use your power sparingly, but withdraw it quickly once you get the person’s honest attention. You might also do well to consider whether your staff member might be reacting to some inappropriate act of power of your own. Power ought never be used as a means to achieve what you want.

B. The Manager who is a Leader and Facilitator

The leading and facilitating I refer to is what I call real managing. You are negotiating to get things done smoothly and without strife on a daily basis. (Remember that whatever tasks can be planned and conducted in advance will greatly reduce day-to-day demands.) Your Authority (K) is significant to the extent that you are always fully informed on all aspects of the project. Authority (J) is your conduct as the facilitator.

There is a large body of learning on what is referred to as the "Win/Win" concept. Dr. Thomas Gordon's work best describes this as the "No-lose" method of problem solving. Success is optimized by cooperation. The manager sets the objectives and works interactively with subordinates to find solutions. He/she makes sure each member of the staff feels they have been treated as a necessary and respected cog in the wheel. Decisions that affect how the staff does its work are determined by consensus.

Consensus is achieved by talking things over with open lines of communication until everyone is satisfied. All potential conflicts must be identified, studied and resolved well in advance, before they actually become problematic. The "no-lose" method of conflict resolution fosters willing acceptance, where members become enthusiastic and feel proud of the way they operate together.

I have found that using the no-lose method, in combination with the assertive communication techniques I outlined in Part 1, is very successful. When things have gone wrong, it was almost always because I ran short of time and tried to accomplish too much with too few resources. No one can tell you absolutely when you should use any particular technique - that is something you have to judge for yourself. The best overall advice I can give is to know everything you can possibly know about every project, and to plan it well in advance. Monitor progress with lots of non-provocative questions. This prompts the staff member either to finish up a task that has been overlooked, or else to ask you for advice. You'll get responses that will alert you to potential problems. When you do run short of time, you may have to rely on more autocratic methods, regardless of the circumstance.

Managing takes work. How you conduct yourself is what affects the outcome positively or negatively. You'll need to employ each of the management styles I have outlined depending on the circumstances, and the people you are dealing with. You are managing people, and that always takes finesse. Practicing your finesse is like managing the cards in your hand. To quote the song "The Gambler": "You have to know when to hold them and you have to know when to fold them, until the dealing's done."

I hope the techniques I have provided will help you to be a successful gambler in dealing with the problems in your CAD department. If you gain all of the knowledge you possibly can and plan carefully in advance, I'm sure you'll find success.

About the Author

Barrie Mathews is president and manager of product design and engineering at Softco Engineering Systems Inc., developers of the S-MAN AutoCAD Standards Manager.

Related Articles

All the week's articles
FREE!