Poor performance and inefficiency on the part of
the manager has the effect of encouraging subor-
dinates to be similarly inefficient. “I do my job
as well as the chief does his” may express the feel-
ing of subordinates toward this manager, and may
be a fact as well.
HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
Many of the following characteristics are ap-
parent in HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
managers.
Loyalty
The HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
manager usually accepts orders from those in
command without question and with every inten-
tion of getting the job done regardless of the time
and effort involved. However, this manager
usually has a very rigid and subjective opinion of
what command loyalty should entail.
This manager is often harsh and demanding
toward subordinates, especially when there are
signs of poor performance. Very little praise for a
job well done is likely to be given to his or her
subordinates.
Attention to Detail
When receiving assignments and during daily
operations, the HIGH TASK/LOW PERSON-
NEL manager is likely to be most attentive to
detail. When a slight deviation or error in per-
formance by a subordinate is noticed, this
manager is extremely critical and short-tempered.
Rather than allowing the subordinate to grow
through trial and error, the manager shows
dissatisfaction, reassigns the subordinate, and
personally performs the operation.
Sometimes when interpreting assignments, this
manager tends to become overbearing and harsh
rather than remaining calm and giving the
assignment in a pleasant tone of voice, which
would make subordinates feel more at ease.
Listening
The HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
manager is not likely to be a good listener when
managing subordinates. The statement “I don’t
want to hear it” is a favorite of this manager. In
this case, subordinates soon become reluctant to
bring any type of problem to this manager’s
attention,
reasoning that their pleas would
probably fall on deaf ears anyway.
Teamwork
The HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
manager usually promotes teamwork of a sort.
However, a true sense of teamwork may not
develop, because this manager may not feel
obligated to assist subordinates who experience
difficulty in certain endeavors. Suppose, for
example, that Chief X supervises five RPs, two
of whom are Seaman Y and Seaman Z. Seaman
Y types well, but has poor telephone etiquette.
Seaman Z makes a fine receptionist, but types
poorly. Instead of helping the seamen in the areas
in which they are weak, this manager may say,
“Seaman Y, since you type well, you type all the
letters, but stay away from the receptionist’s desk.
That’s Seaman Z’s job. And Seaman Z, don’t you
touch the typewriter; just stick to the receptionist
duties!” This manager occasionally uses isolation
as a disciplinary measure. This type of super-
vision, while sometimes justified, would not be
conducive to good teamwork.
Rapport with Subordinates
“I am your LPO, and I am not here to win
a popularity contest.” Does that sound familiar?
The HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL manager
may actually convey such an impression to subor-
dinates, making it clear that the development of
rapport does not really matter. In any case, no
doubt exists in anyone’s mind as to who is in
charge.
The Confidence of Others
Because the HIGH TASK/LOW PERSON-
NEL manager is normally a high achiever, he or
she can usually win the confidence of the chaplain
and command leaders through high productivity.
However, because a short temper is sometimes
displayed in dealing with subordinates, or a
general lack of regard for them is shown, con-
fidence in such a person as a personnel manager
may be lacking. Personnel assigned to this
manager may not be able to win the confidence
of outsiders. For example, it maybe said that “the
Chief is capable, but those other RPs are poor
performers.”
Efficiency
The HIGH TASK/LOW PERSONNEL
manager is often a fine performer; however,
assigned personnel may not be sufficiently trained
5-6
