Business Finance
MGT 317 Troy University Managing Your Boss & Managing Oneself Discussion

MGT 317

Troy University


Question Description

I’m working on a Business question and need guidance to help me study.

Read both articles from Harvard Business Review and reflect on these from the two different perspective. After reading Managing Oneself by the Peter Drucker (called the Father of Modern Management), reflect on the questions asked in the article and write a one page reflection on what you see in yourself and how that applies to your experience so far in the workplace.

Second, do the same with Managing Your Boss. You have all had different kinds of bosses, and you will have many different kinds of supervisors in the future. You can help your career by being learning how to work with different types of styles and personalities, and as always, employ the empathy and perspective that makes leaders. Write a second one page reflection on when you have seen some of the issues raised in your work experiences of the past and what you might want to do or think differently going forward.

Please use WORD only to do this assignment, proof your work and be parsimonious (don't be wordy) in your writing of these essays. Any questions, as always, let me know.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

» MANAGING YOURSELF BEST OF HBR 1999 We live in an age of unprecedented opportunity: If you've got ambition and smarts, you can rise to the top of your chosen profession, regardless of where you started out. But with opportunity comes responsibility. Companies today aren't managing their employees'careers; knowledge workers must, effectively, be their own chief executive officers. It's up to you to carve out your place, to know when to change course, and to keep yourself engaged and productive during a work life that may span some 50 years.To do those things well, you'll need to cultivate adeepunderstandingof yourself-not only what your strengths and weaknesses are but also how you learn, how you work with others, what your values are, and where you can make the greatest contribution. Because only when you operate from strengths can you achieve true excellence. Managing Oneself by Peter R Drucker Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know themselvestheir strengths, their values, and how they best perform. 100 W: istory's great achievers - a Napoleon, a da Vinci, a Mozart - have always managed themselves. That, in large measure, is what makes them great achievers. But they are rare exceptions, so unusual both in their talents and their accomplishments as to be considered outside the boundaries of ordinary human existence. Now, most of us, even those of us with modest endowments, will have to leam to manage ourselves. We will have to leam to develop ourselves. We will have to place ourselves where we can make the greatest contribution. And we will have to stay mentally alert and engaged during a 50-year working life, which means knowing how and when to change the work we do. What Are My Strengths? Most people think they know what they are good at. They are usually wrong. More often, people know what they are not good at - and even then more people are wrong than right. And yet, a person can perform only from strength. One cannot build performance on weaknesses, let alone on something one cannot do at all. Throughout history, people had little need to know their strengths. A person was born into a position and a line of work: The peasant's son would also be a peasant; the artisan's daughter, an artisan's wife; and so on. But now people have choices. We need to know our strengths in order to know where we belong. HARVARD BUSTNESS REVIEUi » MANAGING YOURSELF The only way to discover your strengths is through feedback analysis. Whenever you make a key decision or take a key action, write down what you expect will happen. Nine or 12 months later, compare the actual results with your expectations. I have been practicing this method for 15 to 20 years now, and every time I do it, 1 am surprised. The feedback analysis showed me, for instance-and to my great surprise-that I have an intuitive understanding of technical people, whether they are engineers or accountants or market researchers. It also showed me that I don't really resonate with generalists. Feedback analysis is by no means new. It was invented sometime in the fourteenth century by an otherwise totally obscure German theologian and picked up quite independently, some 150 years later, by John Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola, each of whom incorporated it into the practice of his followers. In fact, the steadfast focus on performance and results that this habit produces explains why the institutions these two men founded, the Calvinist church and the Jesuit order, came to dominate Europe within 30 years. Practiced consistently, this simple method will show you within a fairly short period of time, maybe two or three years, where your strengths lie and this is the most important thing to know. The method will show you what you are doing or failing to do that deprives you of the full benefits of your strengths. It will show you where you are not particularly competent. And finally, it will show you where you have no strengths and cannot perform. Second, work on improving your strengths. Analysis will rapidly show where you need to improve skills or acquire new ones. It will also show the gaps in your knowledge -and those can usually befilled.Mathematicians are bom, but everyone can learn trigonometry. Third, discover where your intellectual arrogance is causing disabling ignorance and overcome it. Far too many people - especially people with great It takes far more energy to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than to improve from first-rate performance to excelience. expertise in one area-are contemptuous of knowledge in other areas or believe that heing bright is a substitute for knowledge. First-rate engineers, for instance, tend to take pride in not knowing anything about people. Human beings, they believe, are much too disorderly for the good engineering mind. Human resources professionals, by contrast, often pride themselves on their ignorance of elementary accounting or of quantitative methods altogether. But taking pride in such ignorance is selfdefeating. Go to work on acquiring the skills and knowledge you need to fully realize your strengths. It is equally essential to remedy your bad habits-the things you do or fail to do that inhibit your effectiveness and performance. Such habits will quickly show up in the feedback. For example, a planner may find that his beautiful plans fail because he does not follow through on them. Like so many brilliant Several implications for action follow people, he believes that ideas move from feedback analysis. First and fore- mountains. But bulldozers move mounmost, concentrate on your strengths. Put tains; ideas show where the bulldozers yourself where your strengths can pro- should go to work. This planner will have to learn that the work does not stop duce results. when the plan is completed. He must Peter E Drucker is the Marie Rankin find people to carry out the plan and exClarke Professor of Social Science and plain it to them. He must adapt and Management (Emeritus) at Claremont change it as he puts it into action. And fiGraduate University in Ctaremont, Cali-nally, he must decide when to stop pushing the plan. fornia. This article is an excerptfromhis At the same time, feedback will also book Management Challenges for the reveal when the problem is a lack of 21st Century (HarperCollins, 1999)102 manners. Manners are the lubricating oil of an organization. It is a law of nature that two moving bodies in contact with each other create friction. This is as true for human beings as it is for inanimate objects. Manners- simple things like saying "please" and "thank you" and knowing a person's name or asking after her family-enable two people to work together whether they like each other or not. Bright people, especially bright young people, often do not understand this. If analysis shows that someone's brilliant work fails again and again as soon as cooperation from others is required, it probably indicates a lack of courtesy - that is, a lack of manners. Comparing your expectations with your results also indicates what not to do. We all have a vast number of areas in which we have no talent or skill and little chance of becoming even mediocre. In those areas a person - and especially a knowledge worker-should not take on work, jobs, and assignments. One should waste as little effort as possible on improving areas of low competence. It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. And yet most people-especially most teachers and most organizationsconcentrate on making incompetent performers into mediocre ones. Energy, resources, and time should go instead to making a competent person into a star performer. How Do I Perform? Amazingly few people know how they get things done. Indeed, most of us do not even know that different people work and perform differently. Too many people work in ways that are not their ways, and that almost guarantees nonperformance. For knowledge workers. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Managing Oneself • BEST OF HBR How do I perform? may be an even more important question than What are my strengths? Like one's strengths, how one performs is unique. It is a matter of personality. Whether personality be a matter of nature or nurture, it surely is formed long before a person goes to work. And how a person performs is a given, just as what a person is good at or not good at is a given. A person's way of performing can be slightly modified, but it is unlikely to be completely cbanged-and certainly not easily. Just as people achieve results by doing what they are good at, they also achieve results by working in ways that they best perform. A few common personality traits usually determine how a person performs. When Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of tbe Allied forces in Europe, he was the darling of the press. His press conferences were famous for their style - General Eisenhower showed total command of whatever question he was asked, and he was able to describe a situation and explain a policy in two or three beautifully polished and elegant sentences. Ten years later, tbe same journalists who bad been his admirers held President Eisenhower in open contempt. He never addressed the questions, they complained, but rambled on endlessly about something else. And they constantly ridiculed him for butchering the King's English in incoAm I a reader or a listener? The first herent and ungrammatica! answers. thing to know is whether you are a Eisenhower apparently did not know reader or a listener. Far too few people that be was a reader, not a listener. even know that there are readers and When be was Supreme Commander in listeners and that people are rarely Europe, his aides made sure tbat every botb. Even fewer know which ofthe two question from the press was presented they themselves are. But some examples in writing at least half an hour before a will show how damaging such igno- conference was to begin. And then Eisenrance can be. hower was in total command. When he JANUARY 2005 became president, he succeeded two listeners. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Botb men knew themselves to be listeners and both enjoyed free-for-all press conferences. Eisenhower may have felt tbat he bad to do what bis two predecessors had done. As a result, be never even heard tbe questions journalists asked. And Eisenhower is not even an extreme case ofa nonlistener. A few years later, Lyndon Johnson destroyed his presidency, in large measure, by not knowing that he was a listener. His predecessor, John Kennedy, was a reader who had assembled a brilliant group of writers as his assistants, making sure that they wrote to him before discussing their memos in person. Johnson kept these people on his staff-and they kept on writing. He never, apparently, understood one word of what they wrote. Yet as a senator, Johnson had been superb; for parliamentarians have to be, above all, listeners. Few listeners can be made, or can make themselves, into competent readers - and vice versa. The listener who tries to be a reader will, therefore, suffer 103 » MANAGING YOURSELF the fate of Lyndon Johnson, whereas the reader who tries to be a listener will suffer tbe fate of Dwight Eisenhower. They will not perform or achieve. How do I learn? The second thing to know about bow one performs is to know how one learns. Many first-class writers - Winston Churchill is but one example -do poorly in school. They tend to remember their schooling as pure torture. Yet few of their classmates remember it the same way. They may not have enjoyed the school very much, but the worst they suffered was boredom. The explanation is that writers do not, as a rule, leam by listening and reading. They leam by writing. Because schools do not allow them to team this way, they get poor grades. Schools everywhere are organized on the assumption tbat there is only one right way to leam and that it is the same way for everybody. But to be forced to leam tbe way a school teaches is sheer belt for students who leam differently. ferent positions on each one. He rarely asked his associates for comments or questions; he simply needed an audience to bear himself talk. That's how he leamed. And although he is a fairly extreme case, learning through talking is by no means an unusual method. Successful trial lawyers learn the same way, as do many medical diagnosticians (and so do I). Of all the important pieces of selfknowledge, understanding bow you leam is the easiest to acquire. When I ask people, "How do you leam?" most of them know tbe answer. But when I ask, "Do you act on this knowledge?" few answer yes. And yet, acting on this knowledge is the key to performance; or rather, not acting on this knowledge condemns one to n on performance. Am I a reader or a listener? and How do I learn? are the first questions to ask. But they are by no means the only ones. To manage yourself effectively, you also have to ask. Do 1 work well with people. Do not try to change yourself-you are unlikely to succeed. Work to improve the way you perform. Indeed, there are probably half a dozen different ways to learn. There are people, like Churchill, who leam by writing. Some people leam by taking copious notes. Beethoven,for example, left behind an enormous number of sketchbooks, yet he said he never actually looked at them when he composed. Asked why he kept them, he is reported to have replied,"If I don't write it down immediately, I forget it right away. If I put it into a sketchbook, I never forget it and I never have to look it up again." Some people leam by doing. Others learn by hearing themselves talk. A chief executive I know who converted a small and mediocre family business into the leading company in its industry was one of those people who leam by talking. He was in the habit of calling his entire senior staff into his office once a week and then talking at them for two or three hours. He would raise policy issues and argue three dif104 or am I a loner? And if you do work wel! with people, you then must ask. In what relationship? Some people work best as subordinates. General George Patton, tbe great American military hero of World War II, is a prime example. Patton was America's top troop commander. Yet when he was proposed for an independent command. General George Marshall, the U.S. chief of staff-and probably the most successful picker of men in U.S. history - said, "Patton is tbe best subordinate the American army has ever produced, but he would be the worst commander." Some people work best as team members. Others work best alone. Some are exceptionally talented as coaches and mentors; others are simply incompetent as mentors. Another crucial question is. Do I produce results as a decision maker or as an adviser? A great many people per- form best as advisers but cannot take the burden and pressure of making the decision. A good many other people,by contrast, need an adviser to force themselves to think; then they can make decisions and act on them with speed, selfconfidence, and courage. This is a reason, by the way, tbat the number two person in an organization often fails when promoted to the number one position. The top spot requires a decision maker. Strong decision makers often put somebody they trust into the number two spot as their adviserand in tbat position the person is outstanding. But in tbe number one spot, the same person fails. He or she knows wbat tbe decision should be but cannot accept the responsibility of actually making it. Other important questions to ask include. Do I perform well under stress, or do 1 need a highly stmctured and predictable environment? E>o I work best in a big organization or a small one? Few people work well in all kinds of environments. Again and again, I have seen people who were very successful in large organizations flounder miserably when they moved into smaller ones. And the reverse is equally tme. Tbe conclusion bears repeating: Do not try to change yourself-you are unlikely to succeed. But work hard to improve the way you perform. And try not to take on work you cannot perform or will only perform poorly. What Are My Values? To be able to manage yourself, you finally have to ask. What are my values? This is not a question of ethics. With respect to ethics, the rules are the same for everybody, and the test is a simple one. I call it the "mirror test." In tbe early years of this century, the most highly respected diplomat of all the great powers was the German ambassador in London. He was clearly destined for great things - to become his country's foreign minister, at least, if not its federal chancellor. Yet in 1906 he abmptly resigned rather than preside over a dinner given by the diplomatic corps for Edward VII. The king was a HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Managing Oneself • BEST OF HBR notorious womanizeT and made it clear what kind of dinner he wanted. The ambassador is reported to have said, "1 refuse to see a pimp in the mirror in the morning when 1 shave." That is the mirror test. Ethics requires that you ask yourself, What kind of person do I want to see in the mirror in the morning? What is ethical behavior in one kind of organization or situation is ethical behavior in another. But ethics is only part of a value system - especially of an organization's value system. To work in an organization whose value system is unacceptable or incompatible with one's own condemns a person both to frustration and to nonperformance. Consider the experience of a highly successful human resources executive whose company was acquired by a bigger organization. After the acquisition, she was promoted to do the kind of work she did best, which included selecting people for important positions. The executive deeply believed that a company should hire people for such positions from the outside only after exhausting all the inside possibilities. But her new company believed in first looking outside "to bring in fresh blood." There is something to be said for both approaches - in my experience, the proper one is to do some of both. They are, however, fundamentally incompatible-not as policies but as values. They bespeak different views ofthe relationship between organizations and people; different views of the responsibility of an organization to its people and their development; and different views of a person's most important contribution to an enterprise. After several years of frustration, the executive quit - at considerable financial loss. Her values and the values of the organization simply were not compatible. Similarly, whether a pharmaceutical company tries to obtain results by making constant, small improvements or by achieving occasional, highly expensive, and risky "breakthroughs" is not primarily an economic question. The results of either strategy may be pretty JANUARY 2005 much the same. At bottom, there is a conflict between a value system that sees the company's contribution in terms of helping physicians do better what they already do and a value system that is oriented toward making scientific discoveries. Whether a business should be run for short-term results or with a focus on What one does well even very well and successfully - may not fit with one's value system. the long term is likewise a question of values. Financial analysts believe that businesses can be run for both simultaneously. Successful businesspeople know better. To be sure, every company has to produce short-term results. But in any conflict between short-term results and long-term growth, each company will determine its own priority. This is not primarily a disagreement about economics, lt is fundamentally a value conflict regarding the function of a business and the responsibility of management. Value conflicts are not limited to business organizations. One of the fastestgrowing pastoral churches ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Hello! Kindly find the attached answer and in case of any issue, let me know. Thank you and all the best.



Managing Oneself and Your Boss
Institutional Affiliation


Managing Oneself and Your Boss
Many individuals find difficulties in producing excellent results in their careers and jobs
because they fail to understand themselves and their bosses as well. Managing oneself is a
fundamental component for the success of people in their jobs as it provides a foundation on
which they can understand their values, strengths, and where they belong. On the same note,

managing your boss is pivotal because it helps one to comprehend the values and expectations of
their employers. It also is critical to build a good relationship with your boss that provides a
conducive working environment. Therefore, the article herein seeks to reflect on two articles that
explore the concepts of managing yourself and managing your boss.
Managing oneself
It is the responsibility of every indiv...

Tutor_Booth (16320)
Rice University

Solid work, thanks.

The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Related Tags