Originally published September 8, 2006.
The old adage goes something like this, 'Promote a good Engineer into management and get a poor Manager'. I've often wondered why this is the perception? (I'm absolutely convinced that the statement is partly a reflection of self-serving motivation held by the managers who utter it—but that's another story.)
A Manager exercises executive, administrative, and/or supervisory direction over people and/or things; a Manager directs or carries on the business and affairs of an organization. (Thank you in a paraphrased sort of way to Merriam-Webster.)
Here's the problem. "Directing" and "carrying on" aren't activities that suit people who have invested heavily in learning how to apply science and/or technology to problems, how to troubleshoot, how to create, how to design, how to do things...
And more importantly, "directing" and "carrying on" aren't where value is created anymore.
Jack Welch's regime at GE was characterized by a focus on growth through acquisition, growth through movement into new markets, and a tenacious grip on process improvement. This focus was responsible for the creation of tremendous shareholder value, both at GE and at companies that adopted Welch's style—but the gains have gone about as far as they're going to go. The world is changing.
It's now possible for a small company to be born global. There are fewer untilled fields—fewer developing countries in which to sell what's already on the truck—fewer developing countries with inexpensive resources. Innovation is now the name of the game. Jeffrey Immelt, Welch's successor, is defining a new set of rules built around innovation and organic growth (see "Growth as a Process").
The good news is, these new rules suit engineers and scientists, designers, subject matter experts, and specialists—people who have spent years developing deep, specialized skills rather than more broad-based "directing" and "carrying on" type skills—better than the old rules did.
- Bandit
Leave a Reply