PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12632809

Personalize your management development.

Abstract

Most organizations struggle with leadership development. They promote tope performers into management roles, put them through a few workshops and seminars, then throw them to the wolves. Managers with the ability to survive and thrive are rewarded; those without it are disciplined or reassigned. The problem is, an alarming number of people fall into the second category. This happens not because managers lack skills but because companies fail to realize that there is no single kind of leader-in-training. In this article, Natalie Shope Griffin, a consultant in executive and organizational development at Nationwide Financial, describes four kinds of manager-in-training, each embodying unique challenges and opportunities. Reluctant leaders appear to have all the necessary skills to be excellent managers but can't imagine themselves succeeding in a leadership role. Arrogant leaders have the opposite problem; they believe they already possess all the management skills they'll ever need. Unknown leaders are overlooked because they don't develop relationships outside of a small circle of close colleagues. Finally, there are the workaholics who put work above all else and spend 100 hours a week in the office. The author outlines specific training approaches tailored to each type of prospective leader. By focusing on the unique circumstances of individual managers, investing in them early in their careers, offering effective coaching, and providing real-life management experiences, Nationwide's leadership-development program has produced hundreds of successful leaders.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Natalie Shope Griffin. 2003. Personalize your management development.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12632809/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Leniency and halo effects in marking undergraduate short research projects.

BACKGROUND: Supervisors are often involved in the assessment of projects they have supervised themselves. Previous research suggests that detailed marking sheets may alleviate leniency and halo effects. We set out to determine if, despite using such a marking schedule, leniency and halo effects were evident in the supervisors' marking of undergraduate short research projects (special study modules (SSM)). METHODS: Review of grades awarded by supervisors, second markers and control markers to the written reports of 4th year medical students who had participated in an SSM during two full academic years (n = 399). Paired t-tests were used to compare mean marks, Pearson correlation to look at agreement between marks and multiple linear regression to test the prediction of one mark from several others adjusted for one another. RESULTS: There was a highly significant difference of approximately half a grade between supervisors and second markers with supervisors marking higher. (t = 3.12, p < 0.01, difference in grade score = 0.42, 95% CI for mean difference 0.18-0.80). There was a high correlation between the two marks awarded for performance of the project and the written report by the supervisor (r = 0.75), but a low-modest correlation between supervisor and second marker (r = 0.28). Linear regression analysis of the influence of the supervisors' mark for performance on their mark for the report gave a non-significant result. This suggests a leniency effect but no halo effect. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that with the use of structured marking sheet for assessment of undergraduate medical students, supervisors marks are not associated with a halo effect, but leniency does occur. As supervisor assessment is becoming more common in both under graduate and postgraduate teaching new ways to improve objectivity in marking and to address the leniency of supervisors should be sought.

Administrative Personnel↗