Ask Christa! Does Management Training Matter? (S2E18)

Hi everyone and welcome to Ask Christa! the place where you can ask questions about how to work through business challenges and workplace issues. I'm Christa Dhimo and today I’m answering a question I hear a lot of people ask me these days, and the answer seems SO OBVIOUS, but I’m not sure enough people—especially top leaders—are thinking about it. The question is: “Does management training matter?”

The short answer is YES. The longer answer is, “Oh my goodness, YES!”

I’ve seen less and less emphasis placed on management training as a key development investment and path for individual contributors—and that is one of the quickest ways to erode your strongest assets: Those. Doing. The. Work. 

Most project-based companies have moved away from “functional organizational structures” and into “matrix organizational structures.” 

Functional structures mean the teams report into a manager based on their function. General and Administration functions, sometimes referred to as “G&A” (General is G, Administration is A), usually continue in their functional structures: Sales, Human Resources, Finance, etc. But most project-based teams work in matrixed team environments, where resources are shared across various teams, providing their key expertise to contribute to a variety of projects. Perhaps a scientist is working across various pipeline products, or a sound engineer is working on various albums, or an electrician is moving from different construction sites. 

With such a shared-resources structure, there is a higher level of skill required to “manage” the good humans doing good work—and they DESERVE good managers. 

So to answer the question about whether management training matters, let me ask you a question:

What would be an easier model for you: 

Scenario 1: you are in charge of a team’s performance and results, and your team reports directly to you. This is sometimes referred to as a “solid line reporting structure,” and you are in control of everything related to your function: goals, compensation, promotions, team development, and possible terminations. Performance reviews are straightforward. This is a functional structure.

OR

Scenario 2: you are in charge of a team’s performance and results and your team does NOT report directly to you. They report to other people. In fact—not only do they NOT report directly to you, but you ALSO share those same resources with your peers in similar roles to you. This is sometimes referred to as a “dotted line reporting structure,” and you are in control of managing the project, but your team members are from different functions and are on loan to you, per se. 

They have a direct manager, or solid-line manager, they report to—it’s just not YOU. So THAT person, not you, remains in control of your team member’s over-arching goals, compensation, promotions, development, and possible termination. But YOU’RE responsible for their performance and results while they are part of your project. If you’re in a good organization, you work closely with the direct managers when there are performance issues AND during performance review times so your inputs, and others’, are included in the performance review. This is a matrix structure.

So which scenario seems easier from a people management perspective? The first one with someone managing direct reports where the team is concentrated on functionally-specific work within the team and the manager controls all aspects of the team’s performance? 

Or the second one, with someone managing indirect reports where the team is dispersed across various OTHER teams to contribute their specific skills to a business deliverable that the actual manager—the direct manager—may not see?

Sound confusing? That’s only because a matrixed structure is scattered and decentralized—not as neat and clean as a functional structure, and if you’re new to these terms it might sound like a different language. My next episode dives into the different organizational structures—but don’t worry, I promise it won’t be the snoozer it sounds like…

Here’s what you should remember: in a matrixed structure, you may have 12 people reporting to you indirectly, where you are dependent on their work to complete YOUR deliverable AND you are responsible to some extent for their performance AND you have to hold them accountable to their part of the work… yet none of those 12 directly reports to you—meaning, they aren’t YOUR employees the way they would be if you were their… solid line manager.

Of course, the first scenario is the easier scenario for a manager. Sometimes it’s easier for the team, too, unless, of course… you have a terrible manager. A functional structure is centralized with a higher scope of control and FAR more visibility of individual performance for the direct manager AND far easier to determine how to complete some of the black and tackle of a performance management cycle. That scenario enables the manager to know, understand, and build bonds with his or her team for when there are development opportunities or sponsorship opportunities or course corrections needed.

But I say “easier” in a relative way: it’s only easier because of the proximity and control you have with your team in a functional structure. You still need the bare minimum management skills, and even THOSE require some level of training: how to resolve conflicts across your team, how to motivate for performance, how to communicate (which includes LISTENING), how to manage a difficult personality, what to do if you have a behavioral issue within your team, how to fight for your team members to receive the raises they deserve and promotions they’ve been developed for.

And amidst all of THAT, you also have to know about various employment laws so YOU don’t become a liability to your organization. For example, how do you lay off an employee in a lawful manner? How do you review a maternity leave plan? Or a paternity leave plan? Can you ask anything in an interview or can you TEST the skills of a candidate during an interview? What if an employee needs to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan? Are you prepared to do that in a way that doesn’t create a law suit for your company?

So, to recap: the bare minimum to manage a team includes understanding the basics—just the basics—of employment law across ALL jurisdictions, which might include other countries, too. Then there’s the messy part of managing the team as good humans so they are working well together, and of course, your management responsibilities when it comes to various performance management cycles for each individual on your team, whatever your company uses for those cycles.

So I’ll ask you: Does management training matter?

YES. For the sake of the manager and the team—YES.

But also for the sake of the company: YES.

But it needs to be effective, and that typically means that, as they saying goes, every day is a school day. You cannot put your future or current managers through an intensive 3 or 5 day program and expect them to retain it all and apply it well. It should be like any other applied learning: start earlier than you need it, offer ample opportunities to apply it, create an environment where there are plenty of coaches and mentors to enable accountability and sharpness, and gives ways to cycle through lessons learned with a continous improvement mindset.

We do this with our product management cycles, why wouldn’t we do it for our people management cycles?

If you’re listening and wondering what to start working on to improve your management skills or get into a management role, here are some topics to learn about:

·       Diplomacy: how to say things without offending others

·       Active listening: how to listen to absorb and apply context

·       Patience: giving people space to be who they are

·       Kindness: offering a soft landing and ways to fail with dignity

·       Firmness: creating and enforcing boundaries while also being kind

·       Accountability: holding people to the commitments they agreed, and acting on consequences when appropriate.

Once you have those skills in a place where they feel natural and you feel confident, it’s time for deeper and more technical skills related to management: decision-making, conflict management, negotiations, communication—specifically, presenting to others and engaging a room—and managing your emotions. I’ve seen that last one lagging a lot in the last 15 years, particularly in senior leaders and executives. Impulse control and emotional regulation creates chaos or calmness, and that’s the best way to kill organizational momentum and performance or enable those aspects to thrive.

Truly, most people would start their manager positions in a stronger position if everyone understood how important management training is. Managers have the biggest impact on our employees: how we hire them, how we coach them (including correct them), how we sponsor and develop them,  how we professionally care for them, how we fire or lay them off with dignity and respect. Those are just a handful of aspects to management that, when taught and applied, make an enormous difference to your employees.

And once you make an enormous different to your employees, you see an enormous difference in organizational performance. You see the direct correlation.

As always, you’ll find additional resources on this topic in the show notes, where you can learn more at your pace:

I’ve included information about the book First Break All the Rules. The first edition was published in 1999 and, based on data, it highlights the enormous impact managers have on their employees—to the point where this book started the notion that people leave their managers, not their jobs (and that, of course, applies when employees leave because of a work situation and not becauses they are changing industries or roles). 

Coming out of the industrial age and into the information age, the clock-in-clock-out management style prevailed: focusing on your poor performers, asking your team members to focus on their weaknesses and improve them, not paying much attention to retaining your best employees. 

This book, coming out of Gallup—the survey organization perhaps best known these days for its employee performance and engagement work—was written by Marcus Cunningham and Curt Coffman. It was based on their management research, where they interviewed hundreds of thousands of managers to determine what the most talented employees need from their employers and from their managers. 

The outcome of their research refuted the known, historical way of managing employees, and it was based on data. They said—no, the known management rules don’t apply. You should be focusing on your strongest performers so you don’t lose them—give them more accountability, develop them, recognize the work they are doing. You should also be hiring because of strengths then strengthening those strengths along the way. Yes, it’s good to be well-rounded, and for sure we all have things to work on, but if you’re ONLY focused on weaknesses, it’s what your employees will be focused on and, that’s not what will make them better.

I highly recommend the book, with the most recent edition coming out about ten years ago also incorporates the Clifton Strengths work now included with Gallup’s portfolio. I’ve included a quick video from Callibrain that came out in 2014 as a summary of the book, but nothing replaces actually having a copy. 

I also included a google search about the differences between a functional and matrix organizational structure so you can view different resources offering various insights when it comes to the pros and cons of organizational structures. 

The last resource offers evidence about why management training matters. It’s an article from Training Magazine from 2023 called, “Why Management Training Remains Important.” It’s written by Dr. Jack Wiley, and while I recognize the clear bias associated with a site called Training Mag writing about the importance of management training, it also includes a lot of data that supports the argument that management training matters. It’s short and lists just three compelling reasons why management training matters. Managers have a critical impact on EVERYTHING in your organization, so the best answer might be, “Why WOULDN’T management training matter?”

And it’s a wrap—Episode 18, and we are halfway through Season 2. You can submit your questions to my show’s website, AskChrista.com, that's Christa with a CH, and while you’re there, click on the big blue FOLLOW button and join our mailing list to receive my weekly Sunday Night newsletter called “More Answers,” where I offer tips and boosters to get you through the work week.

I appreciate your support—thank you, and remember, if you have a business challenge or workplace issue, Ask Christa!