Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Being a good manager is a factor that goes beyond formal training and it requires a great deal of talent. In the context of the global business environment, good managers are required to have apt leadership abilities. The relationship between a manager and an employees is one of the most significant liaisons in any organization. Therefore, good managers make sure that their employees remain contented, motivated, and productive. There is a great debate as to whether managers are made or created. One school of thought thinks that all the skills that an individual requires to be a good manager can be acquired from learning and through practice.
On the other hand, another group thinks that managerial abilities are part of an individuals natural talent. According to this group, good management is almost an instinctive endeavor for naturally occurring managers. Most of the debate that surrounds the issue of management has to do with the belief in nature or nurture. The quagmire for companies is to decide whether they want to rely on managers with natural talent or those with ample and relevant training. This essay argues that good managers are created through rigorous training and experience, and natural ability alone is not enough in modern management.
Although natural abilities play a vital role in management, good nurturing of talents, skills, and abilities makes all the difference. The principle of nature versus nurture suggests that it is important to understand the difference between inherent qualities and acquired abilities (Ahearne & Kraus, 2014). Managers enter the world of management with only a limited endowment of natural abilities. Other times, managers only employ their training for their various management duties.
Nevertheless, good management is a form of leadership that just like a skill, is learned by training, practice, perception, and experience. According to recent statistics, a common problem in modern management is that only one in five managers has above-average leadership qualifications (Quinn, Bright, & McGrath, 2014, p. 23). However, it is important to note that not every manager is a leader and these two skills are independent of each other to some degree. It is easier for a manager to learn how to lead than it is for a leader to learn how to manage. Therefore, management skills are more valuable than leadership in the context of the modern business environment.
On the other hand, natural managers are favored for their instinctive actions that are important when an organization is in crisis. Natural leaders often gain an advantage over nurtured leaders because they can bring out the best in everyone within the working environment. A look into the statistics of management indicates that history favors natural leaders over nurtured leaders (Quinn, Bright, & McGrath, 2014). Consequently, most of the renowned natural leaders in history such as Nelson Mandela and Steve Jobs depended mainly on their natural abilities for them to reach their full potential. Even though natural leaders are rare and sought after, this does not mean that they are a one-size-fits-all phenomenon in management.
Consequently, organizations around the world reckon that nurtured leaders are more reliable than natural ones. The presence of a well-trained leader is felt in all spheres of an organization. On the other hand, natural leaders often excel in a few areas and fall short in others thereby creating an imbalanced sense of management. The first step in recognizing a good manager is through an assessment of manager-staff relationships. A research study on management concluded that while one of the most important decisions a company can make is whom they select to manage, companies fail to choose the candidate with the right talent for the job 82 percent of the time&.(while it is) managers who drive 70% of employees engagement (Raducan, 2014, p. 812). Organizations rate their managers using their abilities to foster good relationships and spur growth at the same time.
Therefore, organizations are most interested in a convergence of management skills and not just excellence in one area while the others lag. Natural managers tend to excel in one or two particular areas while they struggle in others. This tendency means that a nurtured manager can fit into any organization while a natural manager is only a good fit for specific situations. For example, a natural manager is often known for specific abilities such as human resource management, financial-management prowess, and marketing among others. These skills are very important in specific situations but they do not represent all management needs. Organizations often consider natural managers to be seasonal but nurtured managers are important for every situation. Furthermore, research indicates that all managers perform best when they have a profound understanding of their organizations (Raducan, 2014). This deep understanding of an organization can only be achieved through nurturing.
Eventually, a well-rounded natural manager can bring harmony to an organization as opposed to creating a major disruption in the guise of bringing change. The focus of any manager is to solve problems by acquiring an understanding of their root causes. The quest for improvement does not have to lead to confusion and chaos. This is one of the major differences between natural and nurtured managers. Natural managers have been observed to thrive in chaos while nurtured ones often solve problems without commotions (Raducan, 2014).
The opposing argument is that nurtured leaders tend to be mediocre whereby all they do is to avoid challenges and look for people to shift blame to when things go wrong. On the other hand, a natural leader confronts and handles problems head-on and only quits when the job is done (Ahearne & Kraus, 2014, p. 69). The argument is that the strategy of natural leaders is the main reason why commotion accompanies them. In the current environment, natural/disruptive leaders often seem like the best solution but research indicates that their strategies only work in the short-term. Currently, the challenge for most organizations is not to achieve tremendous growth, but to ensure survival. Nurtured managers are well equipped to ensure that an organization can survive the uncertainties of the current world.
Managers come in different shapes and sizes but while some rely on their natural abilities to perform, others solely depend on their training. In this essay, it has been proven beyond doubt that although natural abilities have their place in management, nurtured individuals are the ultimate solution to the current environment. The popular opinion is that while strategy can make up for talent, talent cannot make up for strategy. Therefore, both natural and nurtured managers require training in the same manner. Eventually, an organization should rely on a well-trained manager because he/she comes with a higher guarantee than the natural leader. Leaders are expected to harmonize instead of disrupting the operations of any organization. Overall, the aim of most organizations today is to survive the modern torrential business environment and nurtured managers are better equipped for this job.
References
Ahearne, M., & Kraus, F. (2014). Performance impact of middle managers adaptive strategy implementation: The role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 68-87.
Raducan, R. (2014). Leadership and Management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149(1), 808-812.
Quinn, R. E., Bright, D., & McGrath, M. R. (2014). Becoming a master manager: A competing values approach. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.