Director/Manager Briefing
Three Managerial Models. Which one are you?


The Heroic Manager

Heroic leadership has fueled many startups to a high level of success and often is responsible for driving a young company to get its first product(s) out the door. The problem is that the heroic leader relies on her/his exceptional talent and energy, rather than developing the organization. In fact, they often succeed despite the system that is currently in place. Left alone, they work long hours, produce their products and services and sometimes burn out.

The downside, other than burnout, is that they depend too much on their own ability and power, failing to institute systems and procedures that would help them scale as the company succeeds and grows.

Two Kinds of Heroic Managers

The two heroic styles (management models) typically found in organizations are the Technical Manager and the Manager as Conductor.

Each management model has benefits and drawbacks which are related to the stage of the business unit. The problem we see is that managers often don’t know which model sources their thoughts and actions, don’t see the cost or downside of the two heroic models, and work diligently in the model that last worked for them despite evidence that would support a need to shift to the next model of managing.

Our purpose is to bring awareness to the distinctions of the three models so that managers, rather than working within a context that is no longer appropriate, can choose to shift to the model that will work for best for them given the present stage of development of their company.

Let’s take a look at the first two, which are both heroic models. In a separate paper we will explore the last model which we call the Professional Manager model.


The Technical Manager

Typically people who are very good with the technical side of a business will have others coming to them for help, advice, coaching or for help brainstorming issues. They are natural leaders in the sense that they are respected for their technical knowledge or expertise in sales or business development and they usually get along well with their associates. Over time, as their company grows, these people take on more responsibility and have more people reporting to them. What they don’t realize, and what eventually impedes productivity, is that they use knowledge as their source of influence and are the resident source of expertise in an area. Often, they jump in and do the work themselves.

Most technical leaders make little use of meetings, preferring to work one to one with subordinates. One start-up we worked with actually had banned meetings of any kind, reminding us of countries that are afraid of people gathering thus forbid it. Often this is a reaction to the “too many meetings” syndrome encountered in larger companies.

Technical leaders do not understand team or team dynamics thus staff meetings are typically used to pass information. The technical leader owns and feels compelled to personally solve each problem as it surfaces. They make all decisions after gathering information from their people.

Technical leaders, which include engineering, accounting, computers, research, sales, banking, law or finance:

  1. Focus on their area of expertise because of the satisfaction they derive from successful task accomplishment.
  2. Often do not derive comparable satisfaction from the process of managing others.
  3. Often experience problems in managing people as irritants rather than as challenges.
  4. Think of work as what they do when they don’t have to address the problems of others.
  5. Have little patience with difficult or challenging people.
  6. Unwittingly block the growth and development of subordinates.

As the company grows, they often become a roadblock to increasing organizational effectiveness, adamantly opposing the kinds of change needed for the next corporate stage of development.

The Manager as Conductor

As the company grows and managers’ responsibilities increase some begin to see that they don’t have all the answers, can’t check up on all of their people, don’t have time to actually do the work, feel pressure is building up and that something is not working. Somewhere they have heard that rather than demanding compliance they need to seek and encourage cooperation by listening to their people, involving them in the decision-making process, delegating tasks and having some concern for the well-being and feelings of their people.

Unwittingly, these managers shift to the conductor model of managing. While the heroic tendency is still present they now see that tasks are accomplished by managing their people. No one mentioned or explained this new model to them so they are usually unaware of it. Because they are concerned that subordinates will not be able to do what they can do (i.e. speed, quality, innovation) they focus on controlling them. They remain the central decision makers and coordinators of activities they have delegated. They own how tasks are parceled out; ensure that all of their people do their tasks and that the project or deliverable comes to fruition. The Conductor, as opposed to the Technical manager, has become aware of how crucial it is to have their subordinates’ commitment to deliverables but is not sure how to secure that commitment.

The manager as Conductor:

  1. Has become more aware of his/her people as the key to success.
  2. Remains as the central, heroic figure responsible for orchestrating all the individual parts of their unit into one harmonious whole.
  3. Holds the grand plan and focuses on assuring that his/her people work on their piece of the plan.
  4. Concentrates on setting up and coordinating the people and processes required to get the job done.
  5. Is more likely to use various organizational procedures such as managing by objectives, performance reviews and holding people to account, etc.
  6. Is learning how to influence people to get them to do what she/he wants.
  7. Is often viewed as an effective administrator who gets jobs done but not viewed as a “mover and shaker” who innovates and forges new directions. Can get stuck at this level of management.

When the Conductor Style Works

The management techniques utilized in the conductor style works for coordinating and controlling people’s behavior when there are many subordinates and their work is interdependent. Procedures help the manager since he can’t be in all places at all times. Strong, controlling leadership, with clear rules and procedures often help people in their work because they reduce ambiguity and offer some sense of consistency and security regarding what is wanted and how to carry out their work each day.

The Conductor style is also appropriate when it is deemed unnecessary to make full use of subordinates resources or potential. The following situations might be considered appropriate for the conductor style:

Problems with the Conductor Style

While the conductor style is effective in coordination of subordinates where tasks are interdependent, the parental (read over-responsible) and controlling nature of the conductor leads subordinates to be relatively unconcerned about the overall integration of the various parts of the unit. They see the issues and breakdowns with interdependencies as the leader’s problem, not their own. Since they know that all communication and most, if not all, decisions flow through their manager, they can pursue the narrow interests of their own subunits. It’s their manager’s job to balance the diverse specialized concerns of subunits in order to achieve overall goals. Subordinates do not have to take responsibility for how the entire operation works.
Unwittingly, the conductor style leads to the manager complaining that subordinates:

Another problem with the Conductor approach has to do with another facet of subordinate task interdependence. When one contributor’s ability to deliver is dependent on another, there will be breakdowns calling for the boss to intervene. Think of parenting here, as the leader is called upon to come up with a solution while each subordinate (child) argues his or her position. In this situation all three are in a bad place since usually the subordinates are righteous about their point of view, are reluctant to accept compromise and do not participate in a creative solution. When the leader makes a decision one or both will be dismayed and upset. The leader will walk away wondering how they ever got into management in the first place.

Still another problem with the conductor model stems from the leader retaining all responsibility for pulling things together. Since the leader inadvertently hogs responsibility, subordinates do not have to develop a department wide viewpoint (what’s best for the department) nor do they have to develop problem-solving skills for working out solutions with their peers. The Conductor model is a hidden suppression machine in that it blocks subordinate development. They do not develop the skills needed for the next level, causing breakdowns of enormous proportions when the company needs higher level managers to handle expansion.

The conductor manager responds to the above situations by accepting even more responsibility, working even longer and harder and often sees little increase in responsibility and production from subordinates. Trying harder within this model will not result in better results but what else can a manager do? Fortunately there is an answer to that question. The next model provides a context for working with people in a manner that naturally increases ownership, participation and commitment.

(See our paper entitled The Professional Manager for the third manager model.)


This paper is adapted from Management for Excellence by Bradford and Cohen (1999).

Return to Top