The Director and Producer Roles

INTGEGRATION 3

The Director and Producer Roles

As we did at the end of the previous sets of chapters, let us now put the director and producer roles in the context of the competing values framework before moving on to the next quadrant. Again, as with the other roles, you will find that these roles are more appropriate in some situations and less appropriate in others. It is important for you to think about those situations where you will need to call upon the competencies associated with the director and producer roles.

A BRIEF REVIEW

The director and producer roles are part of the rational goal model. In this model the desired ends are productivity, accomplishment, and general goal attainment, and the assumed means to these ends have to do with goal clarification and direction. In this quadrant we are most concerned with maximizing (or optimizing) output. In the director role, managerial leaders are expected to take charge and clarify expectations by defining problems, establishing objectives, designing the organizational structure, and generating policies; in the producer role the managerial leader is task-oriented and expects high levels of output from self and others. This model assumes a strong action orientation. To be an effective leader in this quadrant one needs to be independent and strong-willed, and to have a vision that others are willing to follow.

WHEN THE DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER ROLES ARE APPROPRIATE

The two axes that define the rational goal model are external focus and high control. Thus, the director and producer roles are similar to the monitor and coordinator roles in their emphasis on control; both sets of roles assume that organizational processes need to be centralized and integrated. Here again, we can assume that the director and producer roles are most applicable when the situation is well understood, when goals can be well defined, and/or when there is a need for maintaining consistency in production or delivery of service. The horizontal axis, however, is defined by a greater emphasis on external pressures and shorter timelines. Thus, when a situation is pressing and there is need for centralization of effort, it is appropriate for the leader to take charge, specify a direction, and push for action. Indeed, others look to the leader to be decisive in this type of situation and criticize leaders who vacillate or waver in their opinions.

COMPLEMENTARY ROLES

Because the rational goal model is the oldest paradigm of effectiveness, it is seen by some as inherently good. When asked “How do you know if an organization is effective?”, the vast majority of people will first respond by saying “If it meets its goals,” or “If it makes a good profit.” The notion of leaders being in charge of followers is a strong image that is difficult to put aside; in our culture it is almost natural to feel that one needs to take charge in order to be seen as an effective leader. And so the leadership roles in this model are easy to overuse. At times, though, acting as a director or producer is not the best course that a manager can take. Indeed, as you saw in the producer role, an overemphasis on productivity can lead to high levels of stress and heart disease. Thus, as with the previous roles, a failure to balance and blend the director and producer roles with the other roles, particularly the mentor and facilitator roles in the human relations quadrant, can lead to both personal and professional problems.

Consider, for example, Roger Smith's tenure as CEO of General Motors. Smith took over in 1981 and made huge technical changes as he set out to “reindustrialize” the company. Initially, he was seen as a man of vision, a true leader. But then things started to go wrong. Ford out-earned GM for the first time since the 1920s. GM’s market share slipped from 45% to 36%. Where there had been praise for Roger Smith, the evaluation began to turn negative and eventually it became vicious. In 1989, when he reviewed his efforts to rebuild GM, he wrote about the most important lesson he had learned.

But I sure wish I’d done a better job of communicating with GM people. I’d do that differently a second time around and make sure they understood and shared my vision for the company. Then they would have known why I was tearing the place up, taking out whole divisions, changing our whole production structure. If people understand the why, they'll work at it. Like I say, I never got all this across. There we were, charging up the hill right on schedule, and I never looked behind me and saw that many people were still at the bottom, trying to decide whether they wanted to come along.1

Clearly the roles in the rational goal quadrant must be seen in context and must be used appropriately. Productivity and clarity of direction are important values in an organization, but there is also value in having people participate in the decisions that set the direction. When managerial leaders become too focused on the goals and the output of the organization they lose awareness of the people who actually do the work, and create an oppressive sweatshop atmosphere rather than one where people are committed to the work. Alternatively, there are times when leaders must take charge and make decisions they believe to be in the best interest of the organization as a whole, even if individual units are hurt in the short term. It is the managerial leader's job, in the roles of the director, producer, mentor, and facilitator, to see to it that these orientations are appropriately balanced.

1 Roger Smith: The U.S. Must Do as GM Has Done," Fortune, February 13, 1989, p. 71.