A Manager as a Working Team Member Can Reduce Bureaucracy but Must Still Make Time for People

Artificial intelligence can take over some of the work that previously passed through several management layers. It can collect project status, prepare summaries and make information available without waiting for another meeting. Some companies are therefore reducing purely coordinating management roles and introducing a model in which the leader also works as a specialist. This approach can have practical advantages. The manager remains in contact with the product, the customer and everyday obstacles. Decisions may be more accurate because they do not rely only on second-hand reporting. The team also sees that the leader is responsible not only for assigning work but for contributing to its delivery. Removing unnecessary approvals must not be confused with removing leadership. An automated system can show one person the status of a larger number of projects. It cannot give that person more time for conversations, conflict resolution, feedback preparation and professional development. A manager’s capacity therefore cannot be calculated only by the number of reports they can technically receive. The problem arises when combining specialist and leadership work is used mainly to increase the number of direct reports. The manager then receives personal performance targets while also becoming responsible for dozens of employees. They may formally have access to all information but cannot understand every person’s strengths, concerns, relationships and development needs. Regular one-to-one conversations are usually the first activity to be reduced. An automated tool can collect updates between meetings or prepare a draft of feedback, but a working relationship is not merely a transfer of data. The leader must recognise uncertainty, an unspoken problem, loss of motivation or a situation in which an employee needs help before a visible mistake occurs. As contact decreases, people also become less willing to admit difficulties. An employee who sees the manager mainly as an overloaded specialist may delay asking for help or conceal doubts. The team continues to submit regular updates, but leadership loses context that cannot be captured in a table. Employee development is also at risk. Assigning more demanding work, explaining expectations for the next level, preparing someone for promotion and representing them in personnel decisions all require sustained attention. If these duties vaguely belong to all colleagues, no one may ultimately be accountable. New employees and people without a strong internal network may lose the most. Before changing the model, the company should therefore determine the real capacity of the leadership role. The number of direct reports is not enough. Leaders must consider the complexity of work, team experience, number of locations, time zones, pace of change and the manager’s own specialist workload. A wider span may work in some teams, while the same number would cause neglect elsewhere. Success should not be measured only by cost savings and decision speed. Suitable indicators include trust in the team, unwanted departures, internal progression, access to development opportunities and the quality of work. A manager who both contributes and leads can be effective. The word “leads,” however, must occupy as real a place in the calendar as personal delivery. Key Terms Player-manager: A manager who performs specialist work for the team while also leading people. Span of control: The number of people whose leadership, performance and development are the responsibility of one manager. Coordination work: Status reporting, task tracking and organisational activity that can be partly automated.

A Manager as a Working Team Member Can Reduce Bureaucracy but Must Still Make Time for People

The full article is available to users registered at Hard Skills