Working in welfare enables me to talk and interact with managers
and supervisors on all sorts of matters to do with the workplace.
The discussions are often about trying to cater to the specific needs
of a member. Despite what some might think, these are generally interesting
interchanges; and I find that most supervisors and managers will genuinely
try to provide options for their employees.
So I continue to believe that many excellent workplace managers can
be found within SAPOL. I also note significant differences in styles.
Clearly, there is no generic management style but a variety on at
least two themes that I hear spoken about - and observe for myself.
With some time to muse recently, I re-read an ACPR (Australasian
Centre for Police Research) paper on the issue. And, one might presume
that, in authorizing a paper titled Critical behaviours for good police
managers (2001), the commissioners of police saw some worth in considering
police managers’ styles.
The article, by Kim Adams and Karen Beck, takes us on an interesting
journey through the variables between good managers. The authors used
the work of Luthans and colleagues to define what managers do. They
separated the notions of good managers and effective managers.
Part of their summary read:
These findings imply that perceptions as to what constitutes a
good manager may vary between levels of staff in an organisation.
For example, successful managers are engaged in a lot of networking
behaviours. As successful managers in Luthans’ terms are those who
are promoted, and senior managers make decisions about promotion,
it might be expected that senior managers perceive “good” managers
to be those who engage in more networking activities. In contrast,
as effective managers in Luthans’ terms are those whose subordinates
reported high levels of job satisfaction and organisational commitment
and whose work units perform well, it might be expected that subordinates
may perceive “good” managers to be those who engage in more communication
and human resource activities.
I wonder whether similar divides also apply to the concept of leadership.
Now, clearly, the research was not suggesting that people were one
or the other and some would probably move from one style to another
as needs change. It may assist in understanding why some who are seen
by the rank and file as great managers may change their focus to obtain
“management success”.
Is it only when they focus on networking with the senior management
that they enhance their prospects for promotion? The unkind might
call it nepotism or sucking up, while the kind might call it mentoring.
It comes with all sorts of labels, but it does make you think about
succession planning and the promotional cycle. Clearly, SAPOL is no
different from other police services, or necessarily different from
other management structures.
It was interesting discussing the issue with a couple of managers
recently: they were well informed on the research from their own education.
They also agreed that it was true in their experiences.
The construction of management is interesting. Who are managers?
What is the difference between a manager and a supervisor? And, if
there is a difference, how does it matter to those who work around
them? How does it matter to the individual if they see themselves
as one or the other?
I recently became aware of the issue of this separation as I reviewed
roles for some project work I was fiddling with. Consider the roles/responsibilities
of managers, supervisors and employees. In the OHSW Act, it has them
as three separate areas. Now, obviously, each must overlap, but the
question arises as to who is or is not a supervisor and/or manager?
The debate can be interesting because, in writings on reducing psychological
injuries, there will always be a part that highlights the need for
clarity of role to ensure individuals remain psychologically healthy
at work.
Consider a local service area. A member works in a two-person station
as the senior member. He or she is an employee, a supervisor, and
a manager. Each step up the corporate ladder can have the same debate.
Does it matter? I believe so.
Where we put ourselves influences our response to issues. Where others
put us influences their views about us. Are we labelled as part of
the management team of the work team? Are there strengths in keeping
the two separate or merging them?
Do managers see themselves as part of, or as something separate from,
the senior administration team? I have heard of a senior manager talking
recently about “them not providing” to a local work team. The “them”
was not specified, but I took it to be the senior executive group.
I pondered the reading and where the manager saw himself - as an
effective manager trying to influence senior management, or as a good
manager trying to work with his work team.
