Posted by Steven Sigle in Questions for the Candidates - Hands-off or Hands-on

Posted by Rear Admiral Sarah Hemenway (Presidential Candidate) in Questions for the Candidates - Hands-off or Hands-on

Posted by Adam W. in Questions for the Candidates - Hands-off or Hands-on
This is a questions for all candidates.

An observation I’ve made of people who hold leadership positions in this club is that often they tend to be too hands-off in their leadership approach or too hands-on.

The problems of being too hands-off are mostly obvious. Those under the leader are not held accountable and will slip. Problems don’t get dealt with quickly and appropriately. People lower in the chain of command get frustrated by everyone above them not dealing with their concerns. Dormant members get left in positions too long. The club suffers because people aren’t addressing what they should be.

The problems of a leader who’s too hands-on can be just as frustrating. Those under the leader feel micromanaged and not trusted. Extra hoops to jump through end up being created that don’t add value. Progress slows down because the micromanaging leader makes everything more difficult than it needs to be. The club suffers because volunteers stop enjoying putting in effort, which ends up being more trouble than it is worth.

Do you think you tend to be too hands-off or too hands-on? What weaknesses and challenges do you have to overcome as a result? How do you plan to lead in a balanced way?

Adam W.

Hi Adam,

I’d say that I tend more towards hands on. One of the reasons I’ve succeeded as President in the past is that I tend to have a lot of ideas and thoughts that are many steps down the road from the current situation, but that can mean needing certain things to happen in the immediate to set that up. Also, frankly, I do this because I like to help and I want to help as much as possible to enable the people under me to succeed. Sometimes, that gets taken the wrong way. Finally, I can definitely be guilty of being someone who has trouble delegating a task if I don’t think the person will do as good a job as I would at it. All of these can definitely be taken the way you listed above — as a show of distrust in people, which ends up frustrating me since I’m trying to do something positive and help, even if I’m accidentally stepping on some toes along the way. It also means I can have my hands in too many pots and get worn out and/or not able to devote the time/attention to them I’d like.

I’d like to say I have an amazing plan, but that implies intent. The biggest thing that conspires to make me more balanced is life. :) I just don’t have the time to be involved in every single aspect of the club the way that I’d like to be, so instead, I focus my attention on making sure to put people in those positions that will do awesome work and then identify and offer my assistance where it would be most helpful. As far as the other aspects, I’ve found that having clear responsibilities and sets of tasks for the people below me helps me feel reassured that things are getting accomplished without my direct input.

• Sarah
  I have had plenty of job as both a manager and a follower and have seen first hand how hands on nature often destroys far more than it has ever helped. In my experience the best approaches are often being upfront and honest if someone has a vision, vs trying to force the vision when someone doesn’t do it the exact way you might have wanted. My question is how do you find your balance then of wanting to be that hands on person and still let the people you involve in your administration do their job?

Follow up to that, seeing as this club is designed with a checks and balance approach where the cabinet and their teams are mostly meant to do their jobs with very little interaction with their own grand plans and desires to also help the club. What approach will you take then if someone’s ideas and desires to help the club in the job they have been giving doesn’t line up with any grand visions you may or may not have had?

~Steven Sigle

Hi Steve,

I hear you on the challenges of working with someone who’s hands on. Honestly, as you presented above, I think both ways have their challenges and the most important part is recognizing your strengths and your weaknesses and working on them. There is a big difference between an intent to micromanage and an intent to leverage and help, but they can absolutely come across as the same thing.

The largest counter to the challenge you’ve listed is communication. Since the Exec chooses the cabinet, communication both ways makes sure that everyone is on the same page for what the Exec wants to see at the club-level, what the Exec wants to see from a given department/fleet, what the QDir/FComm wants to to do, and what the Exec can do to empower the QDir/FComm in doing that. Sometimes, there will be conflicts between all of those desires, but it’s important to me that the QDir/FComm is heard. If there is a significant chasm between what the Exec would like done and what a Cabinet member would like done, then somewhere, communication broke down and that’s an issue that needs to be tackled right away.

• Sarah