Twenty-two Ways to Develop Leadership in Staff Managers

Part 2 of 4

Differences Between Staff and Line Development

In looking at staff professionals in terms of the elements of executive development described above, one can see significant differences: They receive far fewer challenging jobs (start-ups, fix-its, etc.) than line managers, and when they do receive them it is later in their careers; they have fewer stark transitions to deal with; and, although the leadership demands they experience are largely the same as those faced by the line, they do not experience some crucial demands. Staff managers do not have the same opportunity to develop as line managers. . . .

CCL Research

Two pieces of CCL research address the differences in staff and line development. In the first case, as a part of the continuing investigations on how executives learn, we asked 250 executives (roughly half line and half staff, all with 15 to 30 years of experience) to describe their most significant learning experiences. Although this study was conducted in one organization, and is limited by that fact, it represents the only systematic comparison of the pivotal experiences of line and staff executives that we know of at this point. Staff executives reported the same assignments as the line, but with much less frequency. Tables 1 and 2 show the statistically significant differences in frequency of experiences for the two groups (these are experiences that were cited significantly more often by one group than the other).

Note that the experiences reported by the line are the ones that are most powerful in leadership building: job-based assignments and lessons (which made up 61% of the total events line managers reported, as compared with only 34% of total events reported by staff). Staff executives report more "soft" assignments and lessons which are more political and indirect in nature.

The typical staff profile has more events involving other people, courses, and early work experiences. Although these are certainly valuable, they are not the ones that normally teach the most leadership lessons. It should also be noted that staff lessons reflect two enduring laments of staff managers. The category "political lessons" shows a concern about getting things done in a complex environment, and "how to work with executives" indicates the necessity of their coping with situations and people beyond their control.

From the standpoint of leadership challenges, CCL research shows that line and staff managers face about 80% similar challenges—although the challenges occur more frequently in the line. Both sides have problem units to turn around, systems to install, teams to build, and so on. The 20% difference, however, is critical.

A unique challenge on the line side is the pressure and feedback of profit-and-loss responsibility. This creates a learning opportunity where success or failure is relatively obvious and finite (see the development value list below). Line managers get a lot of feedback on how they are doing against measurable standards.

Table 1

Highest Frequency Staff Events*
Projects/Task Forces
Values Playing Out
Role Models
Early Work (Non-management)

Major Staff Lessons Learned*
What Executives Are Like
How to Work With Executives
Be Prepared to Seize Opportunities
How to Cope With Situations Beyond Your Control
Political Lessons

*Significantly higher than reported by line executives.

Also, the line has more frequent and direct contact with outside customers and therefore line managers can develop a better feel for the business. This probably leads to their developing a better understanding of the market and customers and more effective customer-contact skills.

On the other hand, it should be mentioned that a unique challenge on the staff side is the necessity of dealing with ambiguity—the lack of a bottom line. This can be a developmental plus in the sense that facing ambiguity and the ability to develop strategy is a key aspect of senior management work.

Although most line managers spend their entire careers in the line, this developmental value is occasionally taken advantage of by line managers who are moved temporarily into staff jobs. This is not common, accounting for only about 2% of the reported developmental activities, but the converse, staff managers being temporarily moved into line jobs, is rarer still. So even in the area of cross-over development, line managers have an advantage.

The differences between staff and line experiences can be further understood by looking at the sample experiences and lessons given in Table 3.

In addition to the findings above, we recently evaluated the scores on managerial effectiveness given to 112 line and 80 staff middle managers and executives. . . . Each participant was rated by subordinates, peers, and superiors on a number of items comprising sixteen scales measuring managerial effectiveness (there were 412 ratings of the 112 line executives, and 515 ratings of the staff executives). Line executives received significantly higher ratings of effectiveness than staff executives on eleven of the scales (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15 in Table 4). For the five remaining scales there was no difference. So, not only do the managers themselves report that line managers learn more of the skills and perspectives necessary for effectiveness than staff managers, the people working with the managers see it that way as well.

Indirect Evidence

There is also quite a bit of indirect evidence of the difference in line and staff opportunities for development. Many staff professionals and managers are frustrated. They are often paid less than line professionals. Only three of the top ten highest paid positions in large corporation are held by staff executives (Shaeffer & Janger, 1982). They rate much lower than line managers, on average, for promotability to senior positions (Cox, 1986).

Table 3

Some Sample Staff Experiences
"When I was an analyst with my previous employer, we were constantly preparing for some type of presentation or decision-making meeting. These were typically high-level meetings and we were under extremely short-time pressure. The only way to achieve success was to focus only on information and aspects that were critical to a decision."

"The president of the company put heavy pressure on R&D to develop new products. I was asked to develop one of the products and put together a prototype marketing plan. I felt the product wouldn't meet customer needs and recommended to my supervisor that it be cancelled. The suggestion was not passed on to the president. We completed the product and ended up losing a significant amount of money before it was withdrawn from the market."

"I changed careers at age 25 and entered the personnel field. I was assigned to professional recruiting with a boss who knew little about it but was a great developer of people. He took a genuine interest in me and spent considerable time with me sharing his broader knowledge of labor relations."

"My immediate superior has changed three times in the past few years. This has necessitated my being sensitive to changes in management style and methods. As the head of a staff organization, I have had to carefully manage these changes so as to not send the wrong signals to my staff."

Typical Lessons Learned by Staffers
"I was exposed to senior management and organization thinking."

"When holding a different point of view with management, document it and share it as a matter of record to allow for a second hearing—help them to see your point of view."

"To move up in the management ranks you have to be willing to place your professional judgment on the line when you have the opportunity to make an important contribution."

"How you do things is easily as important as what you do. Ensure that the corporation does not closely associate you with others whose performance, work, competence, or integrity may be detrimental to your reputation."

"Be patient!"

"I learned how to handle the collapse of a project."

Some Sample Line Experiences
"I had to develop a major new product in a very short period of time. The company wanted superb execution but was not very familiar with new-product development. Their history of new products was erratic, generally unsuccessful. I had to build a team and drive the efforts rapidly, while fighting to keep quality. This meant constant battles with many layers of management, keeping their confidence while avoiding errors. This resulted in a rapid, highly successful launch in a company and system I was not very
familiar with."

"Two big companies merged and I had to merge their MIS functions. Systems were selected to become standard for the newly formed company. A lot of involvement from managers of the two merging companies was needed. I promoted managers' involvement, and some tough decisions were taken; one of the centers disappeared and only one EDP center survived."

"I was sent to Spain to run a 35-million-dollar company with 850 employees. The company was doing poorly at the time. I had to bring in fresh marketing ideas that had never been tried before in an organization that resisted change—at least initially."

"I accepted a job as general manager of a cabinet-making company, having no prior experience in this industry. Two weeks after I started, the contractor who produced all the company's products was declared bankrupt, and we had to take over the plant and some of the operatives to restart production. My previous management experience was with five or six people; here I started with 72."

Typical Lessons Learned by Liners
"I developed great confidence in my abilities to turn problem situations around."

"High-tech businesses with product life cycles of three years require a highly skilled and flexible workforce and an adaptive organizational structure."

"I learned how to make tough decisions rapidly."

"I learned about business aspects, such as sales and purchasing, which normally do not belong to technical/functional areas."

"I learned how to handle myself with superiors, subordinates, customers, and suppliers in a crisis situation."

"I learned that there are distinct geographical cultural differences; attitudes are different in a union environment also."

Developmental Events and the Lessons They Can Teach

Lessons/Skills &Perspectives	Scratch	Fix-It	Projects	Scope	Line/Staff	Demotion/ Unchallenging Jobs
1. Resourcefulness Comfort with ambiguity			X		X
Seeing organizations as systems					X
Knowing what executives are like					X
Knowing how to work with executives			X		X
Knowing how to use systems to manage		X		X
Finding alternatives in solving problems
2. Doing Whatever It Takes Perseverance		X				X
Standing Alone	X	X
Discovering what you really want to do	X				X
Controlling your career						X
Being ready for opportunities
3. Quick Study Technical knowledge				X	X
How the business works	X	X			X
4. Decisiveness	X	X	X
5. Leading Subordinates	X	X		X
6. Setting a Developmental Climate	X	X		X
7. Confronting Problem Subordinates		X
8. Team Orientation				X	X
9. Hiring Talented Staff	X	X		X
10. Building and Mending Relationships Negotiation with external parties		X	X
Getting cooperation	X	X			X
Understanding other people	X
11. Compassion and Sensitivity
12. Straightforwardness and Composure			X			X
13. Balance Between Personal Life & Work
14. Self-awareness						X
15. Putting People at Ease
16. Acting With Flexibility		X

When downsizing takes place, staff areas usually get cut first, deepest, and hardest. Staffers are less satisfied, feeling they have to adjust to the desires of line managers, and agree that line managers have more decision-making authority—even in areas of their own staff expertise. Surveys of organization-wide attitudes show that staff groups have lower than average climate or satisfaction scores; they feel left out of the mainstream (Porter, 1963; Porter & Lawler, 1965; and French & Henning, 1966).

Line and staff roles are inherently different and in some ways unequal.

The staff does exist to serve the line, and staff managers are thus required to persuade and advise more than direct and decide. Problems are more abstract and ambiguous. There is no bottom line, so there is less direct control over satisfaction and rewards. A great deal of the frustration, however, may be related to the differences in development opportunities between staff and line jobs.

Another View of the Problem

Another way to look at the gap in leadership-building opportunities between staff and line is to examine the elements that make any experience developmental. These can be summarized as follows, in order of the frequency in which executives mention them:

Involves possible success and failure that will be obvious to others.
Requires aggressive, individual "take charge" leadership.
Involves working with people not worked with before, with a lot of people, or with a lot of new people.
Creates additional personal pressure (e.g., tough deadlines, high stakes, heavy travel, or longer hours).
Requires influencing people, activities, and factors over which you have no direct authority or control (e.g., superiors, peers, clients, political or economic situations, participation in volatile markets, tough competition).
Involves high variety and diversity: doing something very different (e.g., switching from line to staff, changing functions, using new technologies).
Involves one's being watched and monitored by people whose opinion counts.
Requires building a team; starting something from scratch; fixing or turning around a team, project, or operation.
Involves a tremendous intellectual, strategic, or problem-solving challenge with little or no history for guidance.
Involves interacting with a significant boss or senior executive (e.g., someone who is notably supportive or unsupportive, a positive or negative role model, or someone whose style clashes with your own).
Features an important missing element (e.g., top management support, necessary resources, skills or technical knowledge, credentials, credibility).

When you look at typical staff and line assignments over a career, the staff probably has an advantage in only two of the eleven developmental elements, numbers 5 and 9. (Staff jobs typically involve more indirect influence and have a more strategic, cognitive flavor and content.) Two are about even, numbers 7 and 10. (Even though staff jobs are in headquarters locations, where top executives are housed, the executives probably spend more time in the field and in meetings with the line than they do meeting with lower level staff.) The remaining seven favor line assignments. (The line advantage is especially strong in numbers 1, 2, and 8.) Thus, over time, line managers accumulate more leadership-building experiences than staff managers.

Next: The Effects of the Experience Gap on Development

Twenty-two Ways to Develop Leadership in Staff Managers

Differences Between Staff and Line Development

CCL Research

Table 1

Table 2

Indirect Evidence

Table 3

Developmental Events and the Lessons They Can Teach

Another View of the Problem

Complete Article

GovLeaders Blog

Related Resources