Leadership vs. Management

            In my understanding of leaders and managers, the most fundamental difference in the two is that both managers and their employees are chosen, and mandated to both manage, and follow out the tasks assigned, while leaders are followed voluntarily, and without the support of the voluntary follower could not exist.  It seems to me that within the scope of our class and my classmates, many of us may aspire to become managers within agencies or organizations, and perhaps what we can take from this class is that we also aspire to be leaders within those roles, encouraging followership via example and voluntary allegiance, rather than being satisfied with supervisees who are complacent merely by mandate of their positions.

            The articles around President Obama’s current term, as well as his campaign for the impending term inspire me to think more broadly about leadership versus management.  There are interesting observations to be made around the current campaign management, and I wonder myself whether this President, who has inspired followership amongst a great diversity of persons, particularly in the 2008 elections, could have been planted more directly at the center of the current campaign, focusing on his leadership qualities, ad not only the management of the country.  Ideally, we’d love to believe that at root of winning an election is having a genuine and inspiring leader, however in reality, I wonder if the management strategy of the campaign has a larger influence on the election outcome.

           

I also see a great divide in the roles of manager and leader within agency.  In my experience, those at an agency whom I would count as leaders hold a very different position than those merely appointed managers in dealings with the employees.  Those I count as leaders faced issues, problems and concerns with the approach of finding root causes and encouraging the staff to investigate the best possible outcomes.  These are the same leaders who ultimately would carry the burden if the staff’s efforts were not successful, and in best cases use these losses as a teaching tool and a way to move forward.  Those I have encountered who I would label strictly as managers, were much more apt to apply penalty when staff made a mistake, and to blame the staff for any unsuccessful efforts.  While management of programs is instrumental to program success, I have found that solely using this style of management promotes fear within the staff and a lack of loyalty.

As we continue to move forward in the field, I have faith that continuing to learn and examine the most fruitful strategies of management and leadership will allow my classmates, and myself, to one day manage efforts in ways that will prompt not only compliance, but rather dedication and loyalty within the agencies and programs in which we will have opportunity to work.

The article with the interview with Inwood House’s executive director brought up the issue of boundaries within an organization.  Linda Bryant states that it is important to not fall into the idea that the organization is a family but rather as a team.  I understood and completely agree with Bryant’s distinction on the two.  While it is nice to have the compassion for employees, it is also important to not completely focus on the relational aspect with them-- becoming too emotional would muddle the professional boundaries.  Another point that I liked was that in thinking the agency as a family, the executive director would be a parent thus relinquishing your power to the “parent”.  However, using the term “team” I think of more of a horizontal leadership where everyone holds accountability.  

However, personally I think I would have difficulty finding that balance between friend and manager.  I understand what the role of a manager should be on paper but putting it into action is a different story.  Oftentimes, to be a good supervisor, one might get into deep and personal issues.  For instance, as Bryant talks about conflict resolution and even mentions discussions of “underlying psychodynamic issues”, which may lead to intimate information on an employee’s life.   It would be difficult for me to not get too involved with my employees’ lives.  I imagine appearing lax because I understand where they are coming from and what in their personal lives are causing their behavior.  What can I do to that says “I understand but you have to do your job”?  Negative reinforcements such as warning letters, write-ups?  Or is this something that has to generally be nurtured with team activities or some merit system?  Or a mixture of both?  

Binders Full of Women: Gender in the Governors' Cabinets

I'm not the only woman seriously irked by Governor Romney's story at the last debate about having asked for "binders full of women" when he objected (or so he claimed) to the fact that his aides had brought him only names of men as possible appointees. First, as it has now come out, he did not "go to various women's groups." One non-partisan coalition of women's groups, MassGap, which had been working for some time to get more women in top government jobs, came to Romney with binders they had put together themselves. That is the factual account--not the mendacious pile of fudge that Romney tried to pass off on voters on Tuesday. Of course as the entire social network universe knows his "binders full of women" became the meme of the week with one inspired blogger soliciting and posting hilarious takes making fun of the expression. My favorite--and it was really hard to chose-- is Hillary Clinton in her sunglasses peering into her phone with the caption "Romney still uses binders? LOL"

So thinking about these binders of women I thought it might be fun to take a look at a couple of Governor's cabinets. First up, Ohio's Governor John Kasich. Kasich's Cabinet has 21 men and 5 women (one, the Lt. Governor, is elected). As I suspected, on closer look, there appear to be some possible race and gender tokenism going on in the group. No surprise that one of the women heads the Office of Aging Services and another Mental Health. I'll leave it to you to guess who among the men and women are likely to be African American (hint, look at the agency title). As you would expect all such groups that report directly to the guy in elected office are hierarchical and have a clear pecking order. Those who work with the money--Management and Budget--for example, will be at the top of the heap, those who are responsible for service provision at the bottom. Based on their positions and the level of authority they have over actual financial and other resources Kasich's cabinet could be arranged according to probable importance to him. If I had time to dig deeper I could arrange them according to agency budgets and find similar patterns. 

Now for another swing state governor, Scott Walker of Wisconsin. I was not able to find a neat listing of his cabinet but this news article from the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel about Walker's initial appointments is perhaps even more telling. Fourteen members, three women. And yep, two of the women are in the "girl" jobs, Tourism, and Children and Families.

I could go on. And I know I would find similar patterns irrespective of the party affiliation of the governor. My hope is that this whole affair will wake up some of those men and women in higher office that many of us women are well-qualified for cabinet positions and not just those that are the traditional girl jobs. Me (I have an MBA BTW), I want that finance and budget position. And I'll send you my cv via email.

At just this moment I got a robocall from Todd Akin for Senate. If he has a job to offer. I think I'll pass.

Some general thoughts about leadership (Journal #2)

The beauty of organization is that it could pull resources and wisdom together and accomplish big tasks/mission that individuals could not do. An organization is just like a person: good leadership helps the organization keep healthy mentally and physically, and develop good personality (like open minded, hardworking, pleasant and kind, etc) in order to be successful and powerful. From my point of view, the first step to lead an organization is to make it clear what the organization is going to be like, including missions, future orientation and most important “personalities”. The second step is to set the rules and culture. The power system, communication system and the affection system (which Professor Coltoff mentioned last week) can all be carried out by rules and culture. Both rules and culture can be set by two ways: by force (punishment/encouragement) and by personal impact (charisma, employee’s respect/fear/trust/beliefs towards leaders). Third is staffing. Who you are looking for/ what you are looking for inside a person is highly corresponded to the first step. How to "make the best use" of the staff is set by the second step.

Leadership is a delicate art, which could be conducted in different styles. But I feel one of the most important factors is proactive, always holding to the core mission/vitality of the organization. In a group, members tend to seek for the benefit and avoid risks. Majorities may not always make the best decisions at the right time. Organizations may get trapped in ambivalence / interest conflicts/ risk taking. A proactive leader with firm belief in the mission is able to take the responsibility/ risk to make a move towards the best decision. Also, in order to reach long term goals, leaders should be able to keep the balance between organization mission (task) and staff needs (morale). In addition, a leader need to have enough self-awareness/self-discipline to separate the interest of organization and needs of him/herself (power transparency and monitor mechanisms help).

Mind-Sets for Social Work Managers

One of the two best benefits of getting my EMBA when I was Dean of Social Work at Tulane University were: One, I got to see what it was like to be a student with a demanding full time job and a family, and 2) I was able to observe how another profession organized its curriculum. As a result I think I am much more empathic with my students today than I was before, knowing the pressures they are under. And, Two, because I was working on a professional degree that was completely oriented toward practice and the ability to meet the demands of employers and customers I could see ways that social work education could be improved.

A couple of years after I completed my degree at Tulane an article was published that was to revolutionize management education, and I immediately could see its potential for social work education. That article was The Five Minds of a Manager by Jonathan Gosling and Henry Mintzberg published in the Harvard Business Review in 2003.

What do you think? How might "mind-sets" revolutionize social work education? How would you add to the mind-sets?

            There has been a dramatic change in the past couple of weeks at the placement I am currently working in.  I work at Urban Justice Center specifically the Domestic Violence Project.  Urban Justice is a non-profit law firm who provide legal and advocacy services.  Unfortunately, as a result of budget cuts, the Queens branch of my project had lost its funding and is in jeopardy.  Although it’s a small branch (there are only three of us; 2 attorneys plus myself), it has been disheartening for the whole project.   It seems the director of our project is still trying to fight for the Queens branch trying to keep alive despite what seems to be the inevitable.  

            What I find remarkable in this whole ordeal, however, is the director’s handling of the situation and the employees’ reactions.  The director, Madeline, has been very open and supportive.  Because our project is located in three different boroughs, she mostly contacts everyone through emails.  Since the breakout of the unfortunate news, she has sent out mass emails to inform everyone of the status of what is going on.  This past week she has been trying to set up face-to-face meetings with everyone so they can voice their concerns and ask any questions.  Madeline has also set up casual meetings with “no agenda other than to support each other”.  She understood the limitations of the financial aspects but she is willing to listen to her staff and provide support.

            Being that I work directly with the two attorneys that are in danger of losing their jobs, I have observed their reactions.  Despite knowing that their days at the agency are limited, they are still working hard on the cases.  I can tell that they do not feel bitterness but sadness.  One can tell that they enjoy their work and work environment.  I was very impressed that the director was able to cultivate such a positive environment where workers are comfortable with their setting and have strong bonds with one another. 

            It was surprising to me that the staff members all work in different boroughs because it seems they are very familiar with each other.  I think this has to do with the constant conversation flowing between the staff via email.    They often send mass emails about the latest news on social justice regarding domestic violence and equality to share with one another.  The employees are also always announcing their whereabouts (for example, I’m in court in Brooklyn all day, accessible by phone).  I think another factor that helps with the openness of the agency is the director’s flexible working style—she would allow staff to work from home or to leave early to pick up children from school, etc. 

I think this type of management is commendable and worth emulating.  Madeline takes on the director’s role while trusting her staff to work independently.  She is also caring for her staff; she listens and takes into consideration their suggestions and needs.  As a result, the culture that it cultivates is an open-minded and comfortable environment.  It promotes communication between employees and employer and a sense of belonging for employees within the agency.