DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN ISSUES
In the introduction to this paper, I noted that migration issues served as both pressurizers and dashboards for the human services, capital resource, and natural resource management issues that municipalities face. They impact, and are impacted by, all twelve of the specific functional issues covered in the preceding three sections. Within the parameters of the municipality itself, however, the twelve areas of concern do not all impact or interact with each other in equal terms.
For example, improving pollution may result in improvements in healthcare, although improving healthcare wouldn’t necessarily improve pollution. Improving childcare would improve education, though improving land use wouldn’t necessarily improve education.
The chart on the following page plots some of the more common sense dependencies between the twelve issues covered in the heart of this paper. While second- or third-order connections could probably be found between any of these areas, this diagram is an attempt to plot the most compelling, strongest correlations between issues, where improvements in one area could readily be expected to provide significant, clear-cut improvements in another. The arrows on the lines indicate the direction of the dependency, so using the pollution-to-healthcare example cited above, the arrow points from pollution, to healthcare, not vice versa. The twelve
areas of concern are clustered in their groups (human services, capital resources, natural resources) to show the network of relationships both within and between those broader organizational areas.
HUMAN CAPITAL NATURAL
(Elder Care Healthcare. Education Childcare. Indigence Crime. Housing Mass Transit Utilities. Waste Management. Land Use. Water Rights Pollution)
In the world of finite resources in which we all live, charts like this can help municipal managers assess where they might focus more attention or resources, given the spillover effects into other areas of concern. Taking a simple mathematical approach, we can rank the twelve areas by whether they are more “impactive” (i.e. have more outgoing arrows, influencing more areas) or “reactive” (i.e. have more incoming arrows, so are more dependant on actions in other areas). Conceptually, the most impactive areas should be the ones that receive the most direct attention, while the most reactive ones may be best addressed by paying attention to the impactive elements that drive them. Attempting to put significant direct resources and attention into highly reactive elements may lead to short-term improvements, but if the underlying impactive elements are not addressed, the feedback loops are going to undo those short-term fixes in the long-term.
Municipal managers would be wise to focus special attention on childcare, land use, utilities, mass transit, education and waste management, because of their ability to drive positive change in other areas. Focusing specifically and directly on pollution, indigence and crime without addressing the underlying issues that exacerbate them is a recipe for failure in the long-term, even though the highly visible nature of each of those areas may often lead municipal managers to attempt to address them directly without addressing structural and root causes behind them. This is not to say that the lower ranked issues are not important; they are, but with finite resources to deploy in addressing all twelve of these functional areas, it is important to ensure that decision-making supports effective, efficient, roots-based solutions to problems like these. Higher levels of attention for higher ranked functional areas may be one way to achieve such efficiency.
POLICY AND PARTNERSHIP
Two other related elements that merit consideration when attempting to prioritize and address multiple municipal issues are the roles of policy and partnership.
Solutions to specific problems may be policy based (elected and appointed officials work together to develop a policy that rectifies a situation) or resource based (within existing policies, situations are addressed by investing additional resources into them). Obviously, policy changes may ultimately result in the deployment of additional resources, though there may be many cases where enforcing or implementing the policy can occur within a municipality’s existing infrastructure.
Solutions may also occur in a partnership framework, in which commercial or nonprofit organizations carry out programs under contract or direction of the municipality, or under a nonpartnership framework, in which the majority of human, capital and financial resources used in a program belong to the municipality. In general, commercial interests will be involved if there is profit motive for them. Nonprofits will be involved if there is a perceived social need for which community funding can be raised on a tax-deductible basis. In the absence of a strong profit or charitable mission, municipalities can expect to function in a non-partnership mode, depending primarily on government funding (which may come from state or federal sources, but which is still administered by the municipality without commercial or nonprofit partners) or revenues received from taxes or other municipal income streams.
Municipal managers should simultaneously evaluate problem areas within the framework of these two lenses. Problems that can be addressed through a policy-based and partnership-based approach may be the easiest, quickest ones to solve, as they are all “paper” fixes from the standpoint of the municipal manager (set the policy, sign and monitor the contract with the partnering provider). Problems that are resource-based and non-partnership based may be the slowest, hardest ones to resolve, as they require the municipal manager to identify and reallocate the resources needed to address the issue, and then manage the issue itself through to fulfillment.
Policy/non-partnership and resource/partnership based problems would fall somewhere between those poles, with the former involving a “paper” step following by a difficult implementation, and the latter involving a difficult process associated with the provision of resources, followed by a “paper” step in placing contracts for third party providers.
Whenever municipal managers can navigate their problems into the policy/partnership quadrant of this conceptual matrix, they increase the likelihood of efficient, effective resolution.
If issues and opportunities associated with the six highly impactive areas identified in the prior section (childcare, land use, utilities, mass transit, education and waste management) can be migrated into this quadrant, then the possibility of positive change increases. If they remain stuck in the resource/non-partnership quadrant, then the municipal manager’s challenges will be magnified by the complexities associated with securing funding and administering the resultant programs.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
After discussing human services, capital resources, and natural resources at length, and encouraging municipal managers to seek policy/partnership solutions to problems that may mitigate the need for additional resources, we must conclude by considering the very real fact
that financial resources underpin all initiatives in all of these areas, and that it is often shortfalls in financing that cause municipal managers to have to choose between equally valid and valuable programs that may address equally important problems.
The final challenge for municipal managers, then, is the serve as exceptional financial stewards, seeking opportunities to enhance revenues and cut expenses with equal zeal, while ensuring that the residents don’t suffer undue financial burden or hardship as a result. First and foremost, municipal managers must consider existing financial resources within their own budgets, cutting losses in failed programs, reallocating funding to ensure the most pressing needs are met, seeking efficiencies and partnerships to do more with less—or to do more without having to increase the burden on the tax-paying residents of their municipalities.
When needs can not be met from within existing budgets, municipal managers have a wide array of options available to them, although none of them are easy to acquire. Municipalities may seek additional state and federal funding, for starters, either through grants or contracts for specific projects, or through better administration or more robust usage of existing funding streams for such national or state run programs as Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
TEXT 3
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP IN GREAT BRITAIN
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY (Pages 260-266)
The subject of municipal ownership has of late assumed a new importance in this country. In view of recent events, no one interested in either the safety of private capital or the efficiency of municipal administration can close his eyes to the fact that a great socialistic agitation is upon us, which may result in far-reaching economic changes. A spirit of unrest and largely a spirit of destructiveness is abroad in the land. The money power and the bosses' power are alike objects of popular aversion and attack. Capital looks aghast at the possibilities of destruction which lie in its path, while the professional manipulator of votes and of parties trembles lest his occupation be gone. Socialistic doctrines are finding new adherents and the professional agitator is winning new recruits. Witness, in this connection, the growth of the combined Socialistic and Socialistic-Labor votes in the three last presidential elections : in 1896 it was 36,274 — a negligible quantity; in 1900 it was 127,553 — an increase of over 250 per cent, in four years; in 1904 it was 426,376 — an in- crease of 234 per cent, in four years, and of over 1,000 per cent, in eight years — an average increase of more than 133 per cent, a year.
To these forces, professedly and violently socialistic, have now been added vast numbers of other persons, many well- intentioned, who, without consciously adopting the doctrines of socialism, are giving public affairs a decided impetus in that direction.
Never has a wiser and saner treatment of those public questions which most nearly touch the individual — namely, those arising in and which concern the municipality in which he lives and labors — been demanded than here and now. We must meet them with firmness, but, at the same time, with an anxious desire to make all reasonable concessions. While holding fast to our own, and insisting on the inviolability of private property and the absolute necessity of individual initiative, we must treat those who are temporarily dazzled and misled by the glittering generalities of socialistic and quasi-socialistic doctrines with patience and respect. We must, in our own interest, as well as that of the body politic, try to enlighten and educate the honest and intelligent portions of our citizens in sound economic doctrines, and show them the error of their ways in adopting illusory and dangerous panaceas.
In practically all discussions of the subject of municipal ownership in this country, the experience of Great Britain in that particular is referred to, and it is confidently asserted that results have been so satisfactory there as to make the adoption of the system which has produced them desirable in America.
Many conflicting statements as to the conditions existing and the results obtained in that country have been made, but seldom with authority. To endeavor to clear up this situation by original investigations on the spot, I went to England last summer, and gathered the information which is outlined in this
paper. Much of the material collected cannot be used in the limits of this article, but I think I have set out enough of it to justify the conclusions which I have reached.
In this article I shall confine myself to the following subjects of inquiry:
Has municipal ownership and operation of public utilities been successful in Great Britain? If so, to what extent? If not, in what respects has it failed?
I shall consider the causes which have led up to, and are responsible for, existing conditions, whatever they are, and inquire whether it would be desirable, if practicable, to reproduce the same conditions in the United States.
Finally, I shall point out that, so far as the present status in Great Britain is desirable, it is owing to conditions which do not exist and cannot be duplicated in America.
I. HAS MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE UTILITIES IN GREAT BRITAIN BEEN SUCCESSFUL?
In considering this question, I shall confine the discussion principally to those public-service enterprises engaged in the production and distribution of artificial light and power and the furnishing of electric traction and telephone service to the public. It may be well, however, to summarize at the outset the various directions in which municipal activities of this character have been exercised in Great Britain. These are called "reproductive undertakings," as distinguished from the more limited exercises of municipal governmental functions, such as the building and care of roads, bridges, common sewers, and other strictly necessary municipal works. They all involve, to a greater or less extent, the receipt of some income from, or return upon, the investment — in other words, "trading" features.
Extent of practice. — The list includes water-works, gas-works, electric-lighting plants, tramways, markets, baths, dwelling-houses, harbors, piers, quays, toll bridges, canals, and ferries. In addition to the foregoing, which are the principal municipal quasi-business enterprises, there are also instances of municipal telephones, theaters, warehouses, ship canals, cold stores, hotels, lodging-houses, abattoirs, savings banks, golf courses, crematories, and cemeteries. Even this enumeration does not exhaust the entire list, as there are instances of municipal race-courses, Turkish baths, "automatic buffets," oyster fisheries, rabbit warrens, sheep farms, hop-growing, coke and tar manufactures (in connection with gas supplies), paving- stones and brick-making (in connection with refuse destruction), the sale of sterilized milk, ice, etc. Mr. John Burns, M. P., in 1899 put the number of the principal municipalized industries in Great Britain as follows: water-works, 800; gas-works, 250; electric works, 100; tramways, 50; docks, 12; etc. In 1903 the estimated number of such municipal enterprises had increased to the following totals: water- works, 1,045; gas-works, 256; electric works, 334; tramways, 142; with a total estimated capital expenditure of nearly eight hundred million dollars. One can readily believe a recent statement of one of the leading champions of municipalization in England, that "there is no finality to municipal enterprise. We cannot limit our horizon." Indeed, the formulated demands of the most advanced municipalists include, among other things, the public manufacture and sale of bread, tobacco, and intoxicating liquors, as well as the supply of coal, milk, and other necessities of life. Glasgow maintains a municipal inebriate asylum. Why not go one step farther, and provide, as is done in some continental cities, for one's last inexorable necessity — an undertaker?
It is hardly necessary to say that, as to a large number of these enterprises, few, if any, of our citizens would, from their present points of view, suggest or tolerate their exploitation by American municipalities. They are so far removed from the ordinary functions of municipal government, as it has always been understood and agreed to in the United States, that their addition to present municipal functions would not be sanctioned.
Moreover, the enormous addition to the already over-sufficient and ever-enlarging lists of city officers and employees would be in the last degree undesirable.
But the existence of these various and varied forms of municipal activity in Great Britain shows the extent to which the adoption of the theory and practice of the municipalization of public-services supplies, other than those which are clearly within the limitations of ordinary municipal governmental functions, may readily go.
Division of public sentiment. — Upon the question of the success or failure of the municipal ownership and operation of the various forms of public-service enterprises which have grown up in Great Britain, there is, even there, by no means unanimity of public sentiment. The vast increase in the employment of public servants and in the amount of municipal expenditures, accompanied by a corresponding increase in valuations of and rates levied upon private property, together with the undoubtedly unfavorable results obtained in some respects (which will be hereafter noted), have led to a good deal of popular alarm over the situation and a strenuous opposition to further extensions of the functions of municipalities and a demand for their restriction.
This was well evidenced by a public meeting held in London on July 20, 1905. This was a conference of some seven hundred representatives of the commercial and municipal interests of the metropolis, to which none but ratepayers were admitted.
The meeting was called to consider what was termed "the burning question of London municipal expenditure." The chairman of the meeting was the Duke of Norfolk. Supporting him, were Lord Claude Hamilton, at least fourteen members of Parliament, the mayors of at least two, and, altogether, officials of not less than twenty-four out of the twenty-eight boroughs or cities making up greater London, several members of the London County Council itself, prominent officials of at least seven of the large railroads leading out of London, representatives of the London Chamber of Commerce and of various dock companies, life-insurance associations, and commercial houses — including, among other eminent persons, Sir Alfred Lyell and Sir Hiram Maxim.
The Duke of Norfolk said that men of every party recognized the imminence of the danger ; that the enormous cost of the London government did not promote the really progressive interests of the metropolis, but clogged the footsteps of true progress; that the cost of carrying on the London government had increased from £12,000,000 in 1892 to £24,000,000 ten years later; and that the lower middle class and those engaged in daily toil were especially anxious that something should be done, for if the great industries were frightened away from the metropolis, the ultimate recoil would be on the working classes.
Lord Claude Hamilton, chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, said that the industrial prosperity of London was threatened, and that if the present rate of expenditure was continued, the credit of the nation itself would be shaken — a conclusion which seems to be justified by the fact that already interest rates on English public investments are advancing, while in the United States they are falling. He further said that "municipal interference with private enterprise in the long run must end in financial disaster to the community."
The statement which appears to have been most favorably received and to have called out the loudest cheers, and which is the point of the greatest interest to American students of the subject, was that of Lord Hamilton, that all were agreed that no municipality should undertake any project with the rate-payers' money which could be done as well or better by private enterprise. He said that business men — the men who were needed — could not spare the time to attend to the vast amount of unnecessary work which had been imposed on municipal councils, and he also referred to the danger of "the overwhelming power of the municipal employees' vote."
The London Times, in an editorial upon the meeting of July 20, said that it was "fairly representative of all the industries of London." Referring to what it called "a course of extravagance fraught with danger," the Times said:
At no distant date we are likely to find ourselves face to face with requirements more important than many of the objects upon which ratepayers' money is now spent, and of a kind not to be undertaken by private persons.
This feature of the situation might well make American towns and cities pause. That their finances are no more than ample to meet the requirements of ordinary and indisputably proper municipal expenditures is apparent from the closeness with which most of them have approached their debt limit and the multiplicity of the cases in which they have obtained permission for expenditures outside of that limit.
The Times editorial suggests another feature, not often thought of, analogous but additional to the fact of the creation of a large and ever-growing class of office-holding voters, in the following language:
There is growing up, and is yearly increasing, a large class of persons who vote solid for extravagance; a class composed not solely of builders, surveyors, professional men of various kinds, and the numerous servants of municipal bodies, but also of expectant beneficiaries from such extravagance — people who have a vague but firm belief that, if much is spent, something will come their way.
Much evidence might readily be produced, tending to show that the citizens of Great Britain, so far from being blindly enamoured of their present extensive exploitation of the extra- municipal functions of their local governments, are by no means satisfied with what has already been accomplished, and are praying to be delivered from the extraordinary burdens which have been cast upon them in the form of abnormally large municipal indebtedness and grievously heavy yearly exactions in the form of rates.
The London Standard, one of the most responsible journals in England, has said: "Municipal trading is a thing which, except in very rare instances, stands self-condemned."
Cost of service. — For the purposes of this article I shall assume that, in the generation and supply of electricity for lighting, the municipalities of England and Scotland have, upon the whole, been measurably successful in furnishing a fair article at a fair price. Taking all the figures together, Mr. R. S. Hale, of Boston, a competent statistician and engineer, after careful consideration, concludes that there has been a difference in favor of the consumer in the results which have been obtained from the municipal, as contrasted with the private, supply of electricity for lighting — a difference, however, which is not so large as not to be creditable to the companies, in view of the handicaps under which they have been obliged to operate, to which I shall presently allude. Moreover, with the exception of metropolitan London, practically all of the private plants are in very small cities, while the great bulk of the municipal plants are in larger cities.
Another fact to be borne in mind in this connection is that, in some important instances, the showing which municipal plants have been able to make has been materially assisted by the circumstance that the going plants and business of private companies have been taken over by the municipalities, which have thus reaped the benefits of individual initiative and development. This is conspicuously true of Leeds (population 390,000 in 1896) and Liverpool (population 517,951 in 1896).
But the success of municipal undertakings in the supply of electricity for light has been confined to the single feature above named, and has resulted solely to the benefit of comparatively few consumers, and not to that of the general public. It has likewise been accompanied by failures in other directions, to be presently mentioned, which more than counterbalance the single favorable feature above referred to.
There is nothing to show, and there is no reason to assume, that the electric supply in Great Britain could not have been furnished by private companies as satisfactorily and as cheaply as has been done by municipalities, if they had had the opportunity. Where (in a very few instances) they have had such opportunity the results have been about the same or better; and if there are any differences against them, they are amply accounted for by the differences in conditions under which private and public lighting enterprises are by law conducted in Great Britain.
As to comparative gas prices, Sir Courtenay Boyle, who was president of the great governmental department known as the Board of Trade from 1893 to 1900, said before a parliamentary committee in 1900 that, if allowances were made for the fact that the municipal plants were located in the more populous communities, the best that could be said for municipal gas was that it probably cost the consumer somewhat less than private gas.
The comparative results of municipal and private gas supplies in the United Kingdom in the year 1902-3 are summarized in the Municipal Year Book for 1905. This book contains the official parliamentary reports of all the so-called statutory gas-works in the kingdom. It shows an average price per 1,000 cubic feet of gas furnished by public plants of 2s. 8d., and by private plants of 2s. nd. — an average difference of about 6 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. This result is highly creditable to the private companies, in view of the fact that most of the large gas supplies, outside of London, are municipal, and that the price of coal and labor is much higher in London than in the cities having municipal gas-works.
By consulting Field's Analysis, we are able to compare average prices of typical provincial private and municipal gas- works in England, and find that the price under municipal ownership is about 55 cents per 1,000, and under private ownership about 51 cents per 1,000, but with a difference in average candle-power of 18 for municipal as against 16 for private works.
In the case of gas, unlike electricity, the private companies have been allowed to operate under substantially the same conditions as municipalities. The comparisons are therefore fairer to the companies in the case of gas prices than in that of electric prices.
It is of some importance in this connection to note the history of British gas manufacture and distribution. Gas supply started in England in 1812. The first municipal works were erected in 1824, and the first important works of that character — namely, in Manchester — in 1843. As late as 1850 hardly more than a dozen municipal gas supplies were in existence, and it was not until the decade of 1860-70 that the municipal ownership of gas-works began to any large extent. In most cases the cities or boroughs taking up the business purchased the plants and took over the customers of existing private companies, and therefore started with a going business.
In London there has been a gas supply from the beginning of the industry, but it has always remained in the hands of private companies. Down to about 1850 there was free competition between several companies, resulting in poor service, at moderate prices, with low dividends. For the next twenty years there was practically a regulated monopoly. This resulted in better service and higher dividends, though the price remained about the same. Since 1870 the so-called "sliding scale" has been in use, accompanied with lower prices, better service, and larger dividends.
In the field of electric traction, while British municipalities have given lower fares for short rides than are charged in America, their average fares per mile traveled and fares for long distances are higher — particularly when the difference in wages and in the value of money there and here is taken into consideration.
TEXT 4
EXPLAINING THE NEW FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT
Remember the four "classic" functions of management — plan, organize, lead, and control — that you learned in school? (Yeah. We were asleep in that class, too.) These management functions form the foundation from which every manager works. Although these basic functions are fine for taking care of most of your day-to-day management duties, they fail to reflect the new reality of the workplace and the new partnership of managers and workers. What is needed is a new set of management functions that builds upon the four classic functions of management. You're in luck. The sections that follow describe the functions of the new manager in the 21st-century workplace.
Energize
Today's managers are masters of making things happen — starting with themselves. "If it's to be, it's to begin with me." Think of the best managers you know. What one quality sets them apart from the rest? Is it their organizational skills, their fairness, or their technical ability? Perhaps their ability to delegate or the long hours that they keep sets them apart.
Although all these traits may be important to a manager's success, we haven't yet named the unique quality that makes a good manager great. The most important management function is to get people excited and inspired, that is, to energize them.
You can be the best analyst in the world, the most highly organized executive on
the planet, or fair beyond reproach, but if the level of excitement that you generate can be likened more to that of a dish rag than to that of a spark plug, then you're handicapped in your efforts to create a truly great organization. ("Everyone follow me!" she said as her staff went back to sleep.)
Great managers create far more energy than they consume. The best managers are organizational catalysts. Instead of taking energy from an organization, they channel and amplify it to the organization. In every interaction, effective managers take the natural energy of their employees, add to it, and leave the employees in a higher energy state than when they started the interaction. Management becomes a process of transmitting the excitement that you feel about your organization and its goals to your employees in terms that they can understand and appreciate. Before you know it, your employees are as excited about the organization as you are, and you can simply allow their energy to carry you forward.
A picture is worth a thousand words. This statement is as true for the pictures that you paint in the minds of others as for the pictures that people paint on canvas or print on the pages of magazines and books. Imagine taking a vacation with your family or friends. As the big day draws near, you keep the goal exciting and fresh in the minds of your family or friends by creating a vision of the journey that awaits you. Vivid descriptions of white sand beaches, towering redwoods, glittering skylines, secluded lakes, hot food, and indoor plumbing paint pictures in the minds of each of your fellow travelers. With this vision in mind, everyone works toward a common goal of having a successful vacation.
What managers really do
With tongue planted firmly in cheek, we universally agree that all managers perform five functions in an organization. These five functions are as follows:
Eat: Management clearly has its rewards, one of which is an expense account and all the company-paid lunches and dinners you can get away with. And if those yo-yos in accounting dare to question the business purpose of your meals, you can always threaten to leave them off your list of invitees.
Meet:Meetings are truly a perk of management. The higher you rise in an organization, the more time you spend in meetings. Instead of doing productive work, you now spend more time than ever listening to presentations that have no relevance to your department, drinking three-day-old coffee, and keeping close tabs on your watch as your meeting drags on and on — well past its scheduled ending time.
Punish:With so many wayward employees, the best managers learn to punish early and punish often. What better way to show your employees that you care? Punishment also sends a welcome signal to upper management that you don't put up with any nonsense from your underlings.
Obstruct:When you ask managers what single achievement makes them proudest, they are likely to bring out policies as thick as the Yellow Pages that were carefully drafted over many years. A close look at the policy may reveal a package of deftly written red tape that does more to prevent good customer service than it does to support it.
Obscure:Managers are masters at the art of miscommunication. No one knows better than a manager that information is power, that an individual who has it has the power, and that an individual who doesn't is lost With potential enemies all around, why give anyone else a chance to get an advantage over you? "Hey! That information is on a need-to-know basis only!" And for heaven's sake, why let your employees in on the inner workings of the organization? They wouldn't appreciate or understand it anyway, right?
Actually, this isn't the list of the functions of management. Although the list may ring true in many cases, we were just pulling your leg.
Successful managers create compelling visions — pictures of a future organization that inspire and compel employees to bring out their best performance.
Empower
Have you ever worked for someone who didn't let you do your job without questioning your every decision? Maybe you spent all weekend working on a special project only to have it casually discarded by your boss. "What were you thinking when you did this, Elizabeth? Our customers will never buy into that approach!" Or maybe you went out of your way to help a customer, accepting a return shipment of an item against company policy. "Why do you think we have policies — because we enjoy killing trees? No! If we made exceptions for everyone, we'd go out of business!" How did it feel to have your sincere efforts at doing a great job disparaged? What was your reaction? Chances are, you didn't bother making the extra effort again.
Despite rumors to the contrary, when you empower your employees, you do not stop managing. What changes is the way you manage. Managers still provide vision, establish organizational goals, and determine shared values. However, managers must establish a corporate infrastructure — skills training, teams, and so on — that supports empowerment. And although all your employees may not want to be empowered, you still have to provide an environment that supports those employees who are eager for a taste of the freedom to apply their personal creativity and expertise to your organization.
Great managers allow their employees to do great work. This role is a vital function of management, for even the greatest managers in the world can't succeed all by themselves. To achieve the organizations' goals, managers depend on their employees' skills. Effective management is the leveraging of the efforts of every member of a work unit toward a common purpose. If you're constantly doing your employees' work for them, not only have you lost the advantage of the leverage that your employees can provide you, but you're also putting yourself on the path to stress, ulcers, and worse.
However, far worse than the personal loss that you suffer when you don't empower employees is that everyone in your organization loses. Your employees lose because you aren't allowing them to stretch themselves or to show creativity or initiative. Your organization loses the insights that its creative workforce brings with it. Finally, your customers lose because your employees are afraid to provide them with exceptional service. Why should they if they're constantly worried that you will punish them for taking initiative or for pushing the limits of the organization to better serve your customers?
As William McKnight, former CEO of manufacturing giant 3M put it, "The mistakes people make are of much less importance than the mistakes management makes if it tells people exactly what to do."
Support
A manager's job is no longer that of a watchdog, police officer, or executioner. Increasingly, managers must be coaches, colleagues, and cheerleaders for the employees they support. The main concern of today's managers needs to be shaping a more supportive work environment that enables each employee to feel valued and be more productive.
When the going gets tough, managers support their employees. Now, this doesn't mean that you do everything for your employees or make their decisions for them. It does mean that you give your employees the training, resources, and authority to do their jobs, and then you get out of the way. You're always there for your employees to help pick up the pieces if they fall, but fall they must if they're going to learn. The idea is the same as learning to skate: If you're not falling, you're not learning.
The key to creating a supportive environment is establishing trust or openness throughout an organization. In an open environment, employees can bring up questions and concerns. In fact, they're encouraged to do so. When the environment is truly open, an individual can express concerns without fear of retribution. Hidden agendas do not exist, and people feel free to say the same things in business meetings that they'd say after work. When employees see that their managers are receptive to new ideas, they're more likely to feel invested in the organization, and to think of more and better ways to improve systems, to solve problems, to save money, and to better serve customers.
Managers also support each other. Personal fiefdoms, fighting between departments, and withholding information have no place in the modern organization; companies cannot afford to support these dysfunctional behaviors. All members of the organization — from the top to the bottom — must realize that they play on the same team. To win, team members support each other and keep their coworkers apprised of the latest information. Which team are you on?
Communicate
Without a doubt, communication is the lifeblood of any organization, and managers are the common element that connects different levels of employees with one another. We have seen firsthand the positive effects on a business and its employees of managers who communicate, and the negative effects on a business and its employees of managers who don't.
Managers who don't communicate effectively are missing out on a vital role of management.
Communication is a key function for managers today. Information is power, and as the speed of business accelerates, information must be communicated to employees faster than ever. Constant change and increasing turbulence in the business environment necessitate more communication, not less. Who's going to be around in five years? The manager who has mastered this function or the one who has not?
With the proliferation of e-mail, voice mail, and the other new means of communication in modern business, managers simply have no excuse not to communicate with their employees. You can even use the telephone or try a little old-fashioned face-to-face talk with your employees and coworkers.
To meet the expectations that you set for them, your employees have to be aware of your expectations. A goal is great on paper, but if you don't communicate it to employees and don't keep them up-to-date on their progress toward achieving that goal, how can you expect them to reach it? Simply, you can't. It would be like training for the Olympics but never being given feedback on how you're doing versus the competition.
Employees often appreciate the little things — an invitation to an upcoming meeting, praise for a job well done, or an insight into the organization's finances. Not only does sharing this kind of information make a business run better, but it also creates tremendous goodwill and cements the trust that bonds your employees to the organization and to the successful completion of the organization's goals.