GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: The Golden Manager's Rule

• 54463
  

  Judging by the negative comments on this article, we're still a long way from Kansas, Toto. If it will make anyone feel better, the same conditions exist in the private sector as appears to exist in the public sector. It's so much easier to talk a good game than to actually perform well. I guess the rarity of heroes is what makes them heroes.

  A word of caution to those tempted to become embittered; don't give in. The world is full of people who could have done better if they had only been given the chance. But, like it or not, only those who are able to rise above their circumstances get any notice. Besides, none of us really gets what we deserve - and that's almost always a good thing.

  And I'm not speaking down from an ivory throne. I am currently biding my time in a pigeon hole position with little real responsibility and no respect or hope of advancement. I have done my best over the last six years to network with the people who really matter and to keep my own nose clean. Now the political winds are beginning to change. I have used as my inspiration a story my wife once told me about a play at her high school in which a very talented person was overlooked for the lead role, yet still was later awarded actor of the year even though given a non-speaking part.

  LittleFish Posted July 17, 2008 2:48 PM
• 54316
  

  I actually had the pleasure of working for a manager who really was a leader. He did the things talked about in this article. He worked to help you dfevelop as a person AND as an employee.

  I sought out 360 feedback for myself as a leader and found that most of my perceptions matched up pretty well with other peers, direct reports and supervisors.

  I beleive my current supervisor (not the one I spoke of earlier) would be shocked at the perceptions his staff has of him. I also don't beleive that he woulld be willing to put himself out there.

  All that said, until the ability to develop people is truly measured and evaluated and managers are held ACCOUNTABLE for their successs, medicority, and failures not much will change.

  Field personnel Posted July 16, 2008 12:23 PM
• 54271
  

  Sounds like a continuation of the "good ol' boy system" with a different name.

  Fed Employee Posted July 16, 2008 8:28 AM
• 54268
  

  Not spoken to in the article is the key question - often asked but never truly answered in the "real world" - as to just how agencies are to go about rating their executives, and aspiring SES candidates, regarding the extent of their possession of this relatively recently developed ECQ. The only meaningful method would be to use some form of a 360 degree feedback approach so as to ascertain from direct reports and other subordinates their personal assessment of their bosses in this regard, a step which is generally shunned or accorded lip service at best. Any SES aspirant worth his/her salt is adept at another, but unofficial, ECQ, that of "creative writing." It is all too easy to spin out literary tales of inspiring efforts to mentor and coach promising subordinates - an occasional and usually half-hearted at best avocation of most senior Federal managers from my own observation over several decades - which, however, are normally taken at face value. Unless some rigor is injected into the ECQ assessment process in this regard, this particular "Q" will languish with little meaningful scrutiny in said process.

  Jeremiah Posted July 16, 2008 8:11 AM
• 54260
  

  The downside of this article should focus on the enormous number of employees those "rising stars" have stepped on, outfoxed by sucking up to current management, abused by "adopting" other people's work as their own and generally held back by a lack of communications. They are not alone, though; through the lack of communications, others in the organization contribute to this type of behavior. In an organization where communications suffer (and that's most federal agencies), competition for those cushy assignments can easily be narrowly focused and directed to favorites. At our agency, when an employee has risen by the means listed above, they are moved to another part of the organization ...to abuse those employees also, I guess. Then there are the "preference" issues - race, religious affiliation and gender. These are so prevalent that the Congress had to pass specific legislation aimed at the make-up of rating panels for SES positions. See the articles this past spring in Government Executive on this topic. There's something severely wrong if there is a condition where everybody pays (via taxes) and everybody does not benefit. That malady, longing for power and pure greed has spurred the existence of agency "families and friends" which extends into the private sector leading to granting of contracts to those the agency leaders favor. Government is for the people, not for the favored few. We're far from that now and we need to get back to living that American maxim.

  FedGuy Posted July 16, 2008 7:03 AM