Which Management Talent Is Yours?

We all have natural talents--those inherent capabilities that put us in "the zone" when it comes to performance. We talk about that phenomenon here frequently. These are the moments when everything seems easy. And the results are first-class.

It's also possible and desirable to learn new skills. But unless they're directly related to our talents, we'll feel like we're actually working at something that's somehow, at some level, a mismatch.

Managerial Talent: The research

Research done by the IDAK Group shows that:

1. There are three distinct managerial talents.

2. No one in the studies has been found to possess more than one as a talent.

3. Thirty percent of respondents had a managerial talent. Yes, that means that 70% did not have a natural talent for management.

The 3 talents defined: which one is yours?

The following are from the CareerMatch™ diagnostic tool:

--Developing/Initiating. Successfully supervises others in starting up new programs, new systems, branch offices, etc. Think "start up" and getting things up and running. Then, likes to move on when the new thing becomes institutionalized. People like to follow because of the focused energy and enthusiasm this kind of manager brings.

--Planning. Successfully maps out long range details to reach organizational goals. People follow this kind of manager because of the sensibility and clarity of the plan.

--Managing. Successfully supervising others in an established organization, department, branch office, etc. This is the kind of person who enjoys managing performance, getting one-on-one with employees, and running an established system well. People follow the dependability and even-handedness of many of these managers.

Hmm. Every executive/management want ad I've ever seen reads something like this:

"Initiates new programs and implements related changes; responsible for strategic planning and industry-related trend analysis; develops and coaches employees and provides appropriate, ongoing performance feedback..."

Weighed against the research, these kinds of descriptions are setting unattainable expectations. If you have one of the talents you can develop skills in the others. But you need to know that they aren't going to shine through the way your inherent talent will. And that means that the performance expectations have to be discussed according to reality and what's possible in each area. (It's also a great diagnostic to let you know the kinds of people with whom to surround yourself).

We've used the CareerMatch™ assessment tool for the past five years with mid-career managers. Three things usually happen:

1. They are relieved to gain a reality-based understanding of the differences in their managerial performance by task. It delineates the various talents that are too often lumped together in job descriptions to try and describe one person--just like the typical ad.

2. Once organizations see a person's managerial talent strength, it becomes more productive for purposes of accurate evaluation and talent movement within the organization. For many it's the first time that actual talents have been identified. (Management is just one area. Communication, Relational, and Functional natural talents are also identified).

3. Managers whose talents really lean toward "individual contributor" are able to be matched with future positions that benefit both them and the organization.

The lesson? Let's take what we know and use it to help organizations, clients, and individual managers boost performance and satisfaction.

Photo Source: Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Comments

[Jefferson Sy]

How/Where can I take the CareerMatch™ assessment test on a personal basis?

[Barbara Saunders]

Interesting. I had my first management job this year. I suspected before I started that management would not be "my thing", and I was right. IC, it is! I think I just don't like to have to manage other people's consequences. Feel put upon half the time and guilty the rest!

Recent blog post: Modernizing the Viral Email

[Jo]

@ Barbara, I like your pithy expression - manage other people's consequences! Did you mean consequences for them or consequences of their behaviour?

I agree Steve, so many job descriptions are woeful. They are usually a proverbial kitchen sink and sadly, I suspect, written because someone told someone to write one. The content is there mainly to cover rearends.

I like the schema because it relates to our sense of our relationship with others (though not to competence of course).

The issue I think comes down to the way big firms are structured. Stable firms producing order need the last category. Then they need planners as 'staff' who might be line in something like project management/large civil engineering works. And then we need entrepreneurs. In the past, business tried to move into 'stable' territory; so the last category was exalted.

The new 'firms' springing up around global networks are going to be less managed. In any one project, leadership will move around as the situation demands. What large firms called individual contribution may become more highly valued as these people connect the 'managerial' types.

An individual contributor who knows which 'manager' is relevant to the moment becomes a leader in his or her own right.

It is possible that the days when managers are paid a premium for their skills may be over.

Recent blog post: 4 hour work week?

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Reading the three management talents made me think of a 'Triumvirate' (ah, no spell checker red line, so right in one ;-))
If you have a management team that covers all three, the sky's the limit. Best example of a successful triumvirate I can come up with: Captain Kirk, Mr Spock and Dr 'Bones' McCoy - and don't tell me off for being a fantasist.

Perhaps management job description should look more into fiction?

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business).

Recent blog post: Why don't I hear from them?

[JetJaguar]

In Canada, there are TWO managerial talents, and almost all managers have both of them: Knowledge of hockey, and profanity.

[Wally Bock]

I like Barbara's phrasing a lot. When I help people decide if they want to have a "boss's" job, one of the questions I ask is: "Are you comfortable having your evaluations depend on the performance and behavior of others?"

Recent blog post: Mass layoffs or not

[Steve Roesler]

Barbara,

I like how you characterized that--haven't seen in put quite that way before and it sure rings true.

The daily management of other people is about as challenging as business life can get; I wish you all the best.

Recent blog post: Which Management Talent Is Yours?

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

You've raised an issue that describes something I've been sensing for quite some time now...the traditional role of manager. The demise of career longevity and stability at any one organization plus the notion of "project" vs. "career" leads to a new kind of "manager" and how the role is played.

My hunch is that, while "getting results through others" will remain the textbook definition, managers are--and will--orchestrate ever-changing groups and individuals.

It will be fascinating to watch the metamorphosis. . .

Recent blog post: Which Management Talent Is Yours?

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

I think you should add another eBook to your offerings: "Management By Trekkie."

Recent blog post: Which Management Talent Is Yours?

[Steve Roesler]

Yo, Jet,

Love it.

You've got me thinking that we should do a contest or start a list of " Special Management Talents By Nationality".

Not a bad idea, eh?

Recent blog post: Which Management Talent Is Yours?

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

That's one heck of a pithy question and strikes at the heart of the decision.

I'm curious: What percentage of potential managers are somewhat taken aback by the reality of that?

Recent blog post: Which Management Talent Is Yours?

[Karin H.]

Nah, too late.
Already done by...... Captain Jean-Luc Picard ;-)

Karin H

Recent blog post: The principle of IST

[Steve Roesler]

Karin, perhaps "Part II: Keep It Startrek Simple" would add even more to your audience. . .

[Wally Bock]

Thanks for the kind words, Steve. The answer to your question is that north of 90 percent are taken aback by the question. The sad reason for that is that no one in their career to that point has laid out what exactly they will do if they become a boss.

FWIW, the other questions in that set are
Are you comfortable talking to people about their behavior and performance?
Are you willing to make a decision that will make some people upset?

And there's one other question I like to ask: "Do you like to help other people succeed?"

Recent blog post: 12/10/08: A Midweek Look at the Business Blogs