The ultimate challenge of a good manager is to make himself obsolete

What makes a good manager? I often crossed this question while thinking about my own career, watching peers or advising my own employees on their career path. Talking about this subject with others I encountered different views on it, often and logically influenced by culture, experience and probably most important the company.

Let me discuss two very different scenarios of managerial behavior:

1. The Hen

Right away this style may apply to both men and women, the linked image shall in no way be discriminative. The hen manager is will always gather his/her employees under his/her wings and make sure that nothing leaves the team. No problem is discussed outside of the group and in general towards the outside there simply are no problems. Likewise any kind of attack on one of the members of the flock is absorbed by the leader and s/he will furiously defend the team members and put the mistake on others. Inside the group problems are not really raised and less solved but often covered by a seemingly homogenous overall happiness by all group members. In general these groups seem to be well organized, team members are enforced and/or empowered. The team leader is much appreciated and as there are no problems the group can live untouched for quite a while.

The problems often start when you take the hen away and expose the team members to the outer world. Suddenly there is a very nervous reaction of the group trying to adjust to the new situation and the exposure often results in panic. The same panic results in a very harsh and insulting way of communication among the team members as the broiling conflicts suddenly burst.

2. The absent manager

Then there are managers who seem to be absent all the time. No team structure, no processes are established and the group tries to adjust to the outer world in general by using an evasive strategy. To everything they say "yes" or "we'll do" even if right from the start they know it won't happen. Why? Because they don't have the right to say "no" as this right belongs to a manager who is not using it being simply unpresent. In general for team members this situation is very stressful as they tend to run from one item to the other without ever feeling to have accomplished anything. It often results in frustration. Towards the manager there are no hard feelings however, often there are no feelings at all.

If you take the manager away in general the group gets a moment of relief, suddenly takes responsibility and gets organized in a natural way, trying to get things done as good as possible. Soon after if the vacuum is not filled the structure may well fall apart as the team members don't have the managerial scope and tend to continue to run in all directions at once.

You may agree that both styles are very problematic. From the outside the group is in general perceived quite positively but the reality is the opposite. Lots of internal problems and lack of efficiency, stress and frustration all over and often a feeling of abandon reigns.

So what makes a good manager? As I discussed before a good manager applies different styles of management, according to the maturity of his team and the teams cycle of existence. It may be quite useful to be a hen for a while. Above all at the beginning to give the team a change to get organized and structure before exposing them. But the most important thing is to be hen to the outside but not the inside. Problems must be addressed and solved. Every team member must be part of the whole, with voice and opinion but also results and responsibility. Structure your team, leading them from instruction to delegation, empowering them to become more and more independent.

The better you choose your team members and organize work and responsibilities within the group, the more you will create a structure that is evolving by itself. Your managerial input will be less on structural topics or processes but more on human relations and personal development. You suddenly realize that the team works as well as if you weren't there.

Does this mean that a good manager makes himself obsolete? I would agree to a certain point and would even say that a good team should be capable of continuing to exist and perform even without being managed, at least for a certain time. But as all human structure it wouldn't last long. Fact is that most managers that achieved to run such teams are not doing nothing, but their work evolved into empowering their teams, guiding more than directing them and making sure that the team will be renewed continuously and team members can evolve into other teams. So with time you're managerial style becomes more invisible, subtle adjustments on a clear path showed. At that time you're presence as manager will become "warmer", meaning less process and more personal. These are the times when you as a manger can start to look beyond your scope and get a vision for the future.