The term “situational management” refers to the unexpected need for decision-making driven by surfacing circumstance. These “one-offs” are usually unpredictable; and because of that they force us to act or react to make decisions and take action based on a blend of unfamiliar data points.
The four steps to effective situational management are:
- Seek and collect information. When possible, solicit multiple viewpoints.
- Clarify what you hear. Received input generally falls into one of two categories — fact or fiction. Keep the facts, cull the fiction. Since accuracy fades with distance, rely first on both sides of those closest to the action. Secondhand information is often inaccurate, so clarify the facts based on multiple points of view.
- Test your understanding. Verify that the facts you collected are (a) relevant and (b) accurate. Do they provide a clear picture? Or is some part of it still fuzzy or ambiguous? If so revert to seeking information directly related to the area of uncertainty.
- Decide whether to lead or delegate the resolution. These are two different approaches. Know the difference and pick the right one.
Leading the Team to Resolution
I define Leadership as “inspiring results through others.” Whenever responsible for others we can do things ourselves or let them do it. Here’s how to show leadership:
- Delegate ownership of the resolution to a person or team.
- Empower the person or team to figure out how to resolve it within boundaries of shared expectations. The problem solver(s) should know what success looks like but be free to figure out the best way to get the job done.
- Hold the person or team accountable for delivering the desired end result within the framework of expectation.
Managing the Team to Resolution
Management is a much more direct approach than a leading strategy because it steamrolls the worker’s freedom to devise plans and make decisions.
Managers therefore are tellers. They tell their people what they want, how they want it done, and when the task must be completed. Once the directive and instructions are given, managers regularly inspect ongoing progress toward the goal. They want to make sure their directed initiative is moving toward completion.
Managers who “hover” and check on every little thing are called micromanagers. Micromanagers are despised by knowledge workers — but they are an accepted and necessary part of output-driven and task-oriented industries. This is also true in heavily regulated organizations that have no room or legal latitude for creative methodologies.
Micromanaged businesses quantify quotas and care less about inspiring a workforce than they do getting the job done and hitting their hourly, daily, or monthly numbers. The amount of pressure they use is usually tied to the boss’s performance and bonus metrics.
Knowledge workers differ from task-oriented workers in that they use their noggins to creatively innovate new and clever ways to drive results. Stifling that freedom to think and act will drive a knowledge worker away.
This stylistic preference is also found among young workers, whose generation is typified by the desire for challenge. Denying “newness” bores these workers quickly, and if not given the chance to find talent stimulus in the office, they will seek it elsewhere. Even the best are likely to attrit.
As I often coach leadership teams, “Talent has options.”
All good executives are broad-spectrum talents flexible to act and react according to the opportunity — and situational management is a great way to prove it. The more frequently a man or woman can effectively respond to a real-time demand, the quicker his or her ascent will be up the corporate ladder.
Lead when you can, manage when you must — but do the right thing.