Mediocre Managers Versus Managerial Mediocrity: Perceptions and Prescriptions

Abstract

Mediocrity in the workplace is a well-established, understudied and an increasingly important phenomenon. In recent years managerial mediocrity has been named as a contributing or principal cause in many government and private organizational failures such as those involving fight against terrorism, public administration, and environmental mismanagement (Fink, 2003; Parachini 2003). In such instances managerial mediocrity has been blamed for preventing organizations from making a timely assessment of their short comings and from developing proactive, creative, and necessary responses. Thus, managerial mediocrity is an observable phenomena but a vexing problem. The literature on managerial mediocrity has very little support for its definition, prevalence, and its causes and antecedents. Evan Berman and Jonathan West(2003) conducted a study in two phases on mediocrity among public managers in public sector organizations in USA and their work remains a solid foundation for research in this area. Light (1999), O’Neil l(2001) and Volcker (2003) said that managerial mediocrity often persists in organizations and that executives of both private and public organizations continue to face serious challenges identifying avoiding and managing mediocre managers/administrators with detrimental impact on performance, productivity, and citizen relations.Now, coming to mediocre managers – managers are of three types from a performance-productivity point of view, viz., effective/good/competent managers, mediocre managers, and ineffective/good/incompetent managers. The above types can be put on a scale where effective and ineffective are on the extremes while mediocre managers are somewhere in between. They are neither effective nor are incompetent, but, just average. He is a manager who is not good and deep down inside he understands that he/she is no good, so they push away potential threats to them and take credit for success that is not theirs. A mediocre manager affects people’s productivity on all levels. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Hoffman (1999) of the Gallup organization in their book, “first break all the rules: what the world’s greatest managers do differently” conclude that one mediocre manager can wreak havoc in even the best organization and send the most talented employees running for exit.Effective managers are those who create an environment in which employees can perform well. Mediocre managers, on the other hand create a workplace where employees either feel they “have to perform well” or else they care only about meeting the minimal work requirement to maintain their job. Incompetent managers are terrified of people who do a good job. If you work, get a lot done, and show ambition for moving up, you are a threat, not an asset (Sami M Abbasi & Kenneth W Hollman, 1989).Thus, it can be deciphered that mediocre managers are found in any organization irrespective of the market value of the organization, while managerial mediocrity is a phenomenon which leads to organizational deterioration.In the above backdrop, the objective is to,a) To define and differentiate managerial mediocrity from mediocre managersb) To examine the causes and antecedents of the same.c) To suggest remedial measures.Methodology: To study the above objectives, a judgemental sample of 200 professionals is drawn from various types of organizations, such as, Consulting, Academics, IT, Banks, and Manufacturing. The sample includes professors, consultants, managers, senior managers, project managers, team leaders, etc. A face-to-face unstructured interview is conducted enquiring about managerial mediocrity and mediocre managers. The questions probed into definitions, prevalence, causes and antecedents, and impact of managerial mediocrity and mediocre managers. The schedule with questions is put on social networking sites too to elicit responses. The present papers presents some perceptions of mediocrity in organizations.