Managing for Others or Managing for Yourself

Managing is an art form that relied heavily on critical thinking and communication skills to keep large groups of people working toward the same goals. Stronger managers focus on the development of their teams to meet market needs. People who can manage for others versus themselves is a great asset any organization. Managers who can meet performance goals and do so in a way that creates a better department should be in high demand. 

It is in our natural best interest to manage for ourselves and this can make it a difficult competing ideology against managing for others. When someone becomes aware they should manager for others they have done so against the backdrop of years of learning, insight and reflection.  People who create these conclusions have thought about what is important.

They must also be able to step above their biological and emotional needs to take a higher road in workplace decisions. When choices are required they look to promote the group over themselves. This can be difficult if someone is still struggling with unresolved issues.  We see this over and over again among people in leadership positions making self-interested decisions. 

Consider how one manager will take the credit for work by their subordinates while another will give credit where credit is due. The first still has overpowering needs to feel important, competent, secure and liked. They are willing to break social norms and trust in order to get the next promotion or raise.  The latter person has resolved their issues and can step above them to create greater trust with their team.

Hiring managers is more than meeting metrics. Even though meeting is important it is also necessary to continue to meet them over and over in a sustainable way. If a manager brings his/her team to a higher level of performance and solidifies their trust they can keep the performance at a higher level for longer periods. Poor managers will only hit the target for a short period of time until subordinate’s motivation decreases.  Building a team, keeping people engaged and motivating them to a purpose is the ultimate purposes of “management”.

The Difference in Recruiting Online and Traditional Employees

Virtual work is becoming a more frequent practice in today’s world. Online workers have some characteristics that make them different from traditional employees. Employers should be aware of the differences between virtual and traditional positions to ensure they recruit the best match. 

Online employees work with higher levels of autonomy and are either very specialized in skill or highly educated in their fields. The work they complete is intellectual by nature and requires a person to be highly focused on their tasks. Such workers are capable of meeting goals on their own. 

Even though online employees must have sufficient verbal communication skills they rely more heavily on electronic mediums.  This means that online workers must be able to communicate and work with others who may be located across the globe. Face-to-face interaction is less often while written communication is more common. 

Online employees also need to be more autonomous and self-motivated than traditional employees. They won’t have a boss standing over the top of them encouraging and guiding them. Instead they will need to have higher levels of internal motivation to keep their work moving forward at a sufficient pace. 

Online workers have slightly different characteristics than your traditional employee. The virtual environment is naturally different and requires higher levels of written communication skills as well as internal levels of motivation. Recruiting managers should consider these difference and adjust their selection criteria based upon the new work models.

Grit as a Factor in Employment and College Success

Students enter into college with lots of different hopes and dreams but not all of them finish their programs. Those who make it through despite multiple difficulties have something called grit. That grit that helps someone get through college despite multiple challenges is the same grit that employers should seek out for management positions. 

Whether one is enrolling in an undergraduate programs or was just accepted into a doctoral program grit has a factor in their projected success. Doctoral grit has been associated with GPA, hours students spent working on programs, and student overall success (Cross, 2014). Such students are fully engaged.

The ability to work on long-term projects despite the difficulties of life, challenges people face, and varying stresses is a remarkable trait. It is hard to judge someone’s grit simply by looking at them or completing a quick assessment. Grit is something tied to the very core of personality of the person and their self-belief in achieving their goals. 

Based on psychological assessment grit is associated with self-regulation, focus, and goal setting (Mangan, 2012). Those who show grit have the ability to monitor themselves for improvement, focus on what is important to them, and set appropriate goals. 

Employers sometimes gravitate to hiring from elite higher education institutions where the majority of students have educated parents, adequate finances, strong university support, and the best instructors. On the other end of the scale the world is very different in terms of opportunities and employers should be aware of higher performance when merited.

Those who achieve despite difficult odds have something in their personality beyond just hard work. Grit is not based on a person’s socio-economic background or the type of car they drive. Grit is something that separates the wheat from the shaft through trial by fire. Employers seeking employees who can gain focus, set-goals and achieve them should be given merit for overcoming difficult challenges and excelling. 

Cross, T. (2014). The gritty: grit and non-traditional doctoral student success. Journal of Educators Online, 11 (3). 

Mangan, K. (2012). Traits of the “get it done” personality: laser focus, resilience, and true grit. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58 (43).