Looking it up on Dictionary.com it is defined as:
man·ag·er
[man-i-jer]
Show IPA–noun
1.
2.
3.
a person who controls and manipulates resources and expenditures, as of a household.
4.
British . (formerly) a theatrical producer.
When I graduated from college and started working for a sports architecture firm the term "manager" was someone that I worked with who assigned the tasks that I would be working on and was able to answer the questions that I had in my day to day assignments. Heck, even before I started working in the Architectural Department, when I first had my foot in the door at said sports architecture firm working in their Marketing Department, the "manager" would be someone who would assign me tasks to accomplish, ensured that I felt like I was a part of the team and was available to listen to my questions or concerns. As I continued down the road of my architectural career I have worked for many "managers" and have learned about the good and bad about managing. Well, at least in my own personal sense as I am merely talking about me here and not the collective that is out in the ether. After working in the trenches enduring the long hours, the late sleepless nights and passing on taking time off to meet the project deadlines when I finally received the title of "Construction Project Manager" I felt that I was adequately prepared to take on the task.
The initial project where I was assigned to be the "Construction Project Manager" was the first time in my career I was tasked with "managing" a team of individuals on a large scale project and it was exciting! I thought to myself, "I have finally been rewarded for spending all that time in the trenches." I was proud that my hard work and dedication had gotten me to the next level and I was determined to do my best. As all projects go, there were some hiccups, but in the end, I believe my co-worker and I accomplished what needed to be done with the tools we had and with that our time on the project ended.
Allow me to deviate for a short period of time because as I am pondering this post a thought came to my mind. If a company is filled with "Construction Project Managers" and there aren't enough projects to "manage" what happens to those who are deemed, "Construction Project Managers" when they are not managing a project? Why they are required to do the day to day tasks of course. Now I do not mind that every once in a while one has to return to the trenches to be in a support role for a project team. Working in Food Service for a time, I've seen "Managers" come off of a supervisory position to help out where there is the greatest need. Of course, they still continue to "manage" but they also lend a hand. I have no problem with this as it is my philosophy that we all started in the trenches so one should not be afraid to get ones hands dirty again.
I bring that up because after another project where I was assigned the task of being, for lack of a better term, an "Assistant Manager" and then another project where I was "managing" myself for the most part, I have essentially returned back to the trenches. On top of that, because of the economy, a comment heard most of the time from Upper Management, I have had to endure a series of salary cuts. I understand having to sacrifice a bit for the company, but what confounds me is that the company has hired additional staff and I am under the assumption that they too are "managers", the project we are working on has also been farmed out to a company overseas and then when I asked about when those of us who have had their salaries reduced expect to return to the "normal" salary I receive the answer that "where you are at now, is where you are suppose to be".
What?!?! Really?!?! Really?!?!
Looking back at the definition of a "manager" then and comparing them to what I am doing now, there is a vast difference not only in pay but also in responsibilities if I am to believe what the CFO of the company says. At least I see a big difference, of course the CEO continually states that one should, "Step up and take responsibility" on a project and that would be well and good if there were people to "manage". If we are all supposedly "Managers" wouldn't that be counterproductive to running a project? Someone has to do the work because in a team we all cannot be the "Manager". If one was to compare what is going on here with either the "Survivor" or "Celebrity Apprentice" shows, one would see that there is either a defined leader or one appointed by the collective group of individuals. Sure, they have their differences but in the end only one person makes the call. To have everyone be a "manager", in my opinion, makes everyone want to make the call or have their ideas at the forefront and nothing gets accomplished. One word comes to my mind immediately.
Chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment