What Kind of Manager Are You, Anyway?

The Three Managerial Lenses

Most leaders think they fit neatly into one category: the manager of production or the manager of people. In reality, the world of management can be split into three distinct viewpoints that shape how decisions are made, priorities are set, and teams are guided. These perspectives are not arbitrary; they arise from the way we process information and interact with the environment. Recognizing where you naturally lean can clarify your strengths and reveal blind spots.

First, the manager of things looks at the tangible side of work. Engineers, project planners, and operations leaders often fall into this group. Their focus is on concrete outputs: milestones, budgets, timelines, quality metrics, and process flows. When faced with a new initiative, they ask, “What resources are needed? What steps must we follow? How can we measure progress?” Their success is usually visible in deliverables - finished products, completed projects, or efficient systems. Because they are grounded in data and detail, they excel at ensuring projects stay on schedule and within budget, but they may miss the softer signals that indicate morale or cultural health.

Second, the manager of people centers on relationships. Executives, human‑resource specialists, and team leads most often inhabit this perspective. They read people’s cues, align incentives, and shape organizational culture. Their questions revolve around motivation, conflict, and teamwork: “How can we build trust? What incentives will drive performance? How do we align personal goals with corporate strategy?” Their value lies in keeping the workforce engaged, reducing turnover, and fostering collaboration. Yet their strengths can sometimes blur the line between process and people, leading to a lack of clarity about operational details.

Third, the manager of abstractions bridges the gap between the two. In the tech world, titles like Chief Security Officer, Director of Project Management, or Strategy Czar typify this group. They think in theories, frameworks, and policies rather than in hands‑on execution. Their mind maps are composed of principles - security protocols, risk models, quality standards - that must be applied consistently across many teams. They often ask, “What rules do we need? How do we ensure everyone follows the same guidelines?” Their job is to shape the environment in which people and processes operate, ensuring alignment with long‑term goals and compliance requirements. While they may appear detached from day‑to‑day work, their influence is felt in the consistency and resilience of operations.

These three lenses rarely exist in isolation. Most managers find themselves oscillating between them, depending on context. However, a natural bias usually dominates. Some leaders instinctively think in terms of metrics and deliverables, while others feel more at home in discussions about culture and vision. Still others are drawn to the abstract level, crafting frameworks that guide the organization’s trajectory. Understanding which lens you use most often can illuminate why certain decisions feel natural and why others feel forced.

It’s worth noting that the boundaries are porous. An effective manager can switch between lenses fluidly, applying the right perspective at the right moment. This flexibility becomes a key competitive advantage, especially when navigating complex environments where technology, people, and process intersect. The challenge lies in recognizing when each lens is needed and avoiding the trap of over‑reliance on one perspective. By doing so, leaders can avoid the pitfalls that arise when the needs of people, the demands of processes, and the rules of abstraction clash.

Why These Perspectives Matter in Business‑IT Alignment

When technology teams and business units talk, they often use different languages. The result is a disconnect that can stall innovation, waste resources, or create friction. The three managerial lenses help explain why that disconnect occurs and how to bridge it.

Consider the case of a chief information officer (CIO) and a chief executive officer (CEO). The CIO is typically a manager of abstractions, focused on technology standards, security, and system architecture. The CEO, meanwhile, is usually a manager of people, concerned with culture, growth, and market positioning. Each of them interprets the same business problem through a different filter. The CIO might ask, “How can we integrate a new data platform while maintaining regulatory compliance?” The CEO might ask, “How will this platform help us win new customers or increase customer satisfaction?” The mismatch in priorities leads to a conversation where each feels unheard.

These misalignments are not limited to senior leaders. Middle‑level project managers - often managers of things - can become bottlenecks when they fail to translate technical constraints into business‑friendly terms. If a delivery manager insists on a specific technology stack, the business may question why an alternative that fits the budget better wasn’t considered. The lack of shared language fuels misunderstanding and slows decision‑making.

Moreover, the rise of agile and DevOps practices has heightened the need for cross‑functional fluency. Agile teams blend engineering, design, and product ownership into one unit. If the team’s manager leans heavily toward the manager‑of‑things lens, the human and abstract dimensions can slip through the cracks. In contrast, a manager who comfortably moves between the people lens and the abstraction lens can facilitate collaboration, ensuring that technical decisions align with business goals while adhering to governance requirements.

Alignment also hinges on framing problems in a way that resonates with each group. For instance, a security policy (an abstraction) can be pitched to the business by highlighting the financial impact of non‑compliance, appealing to a manager of people’s focus on risk mitigation. Likewise, an engineering roadmap can be contextualized in terms of market opportunities, tapping into a manager of people’s interest in value creation.

Finally, the organization’s health depends on the balance among the three lenses. Overemphasis on abstractions can produce bureaucracy, stifling agility. A heavy focus on things can yield efficient processes but risk disengaged teams. An excess of people orientation can generate a strong culture but may struggle with measurable outcomes. Leaders who recognize the trade‑offs inherent in each lens can craft policies that maintain this equilibrium, ensuring that technology solutions deliver both operational excellence and strategic value.

Building Cross‑Perspective Competence

Developing the ability to see from all three lenses is not an overnight transformation; it requires deliberate practice, self‑awareness, and exposure to diverse viewpoints. Below are practical steps that leaders can take to cultivate this competency.

First, conduct a personal audit of decision‑making habits. Review recent projects and note which aspects you focused on - resource allocation, risk mitigation, or team motivation. Tracking these patterns over time helps reveal your natural bias. Once identified, set specific goals to broaden your focus. For example, if you are a manager of things, commit to asking at least one people‑centric question in every project meeting.

Second, seek cross‑functional shadowing. Spend a day observing a peer who operates in a different lens. If you are a security chief, shadow a product manager to see how market needs drive technical priorities. If you are a project lead, sit with a culture officer to understand how company values influence team dynamics. This exposure provides context and uncovers new strategies that you can integrate into your own work.

Third, establish a “lens‑check” routine in your decision‑making process. Before finalizing a plan, ask: “How does this choice affect processes? What human factors are at play? Are there abstract principles we’re violating?” Documenting answers forces you to consider each dimension systematically. Over time, this habit reduces blind spots and improves communication with stakeholders who may view the issue through a different lens.

Fourth, encourage multidisciplinary dialogue. Set up regular forums where people from technology, business, and compliance teams share updates and challenges. Use these sessions to practice translating concepts into each other’s language. For instance, ask a developer to explain a technical constraint in terms of its impact on customer experience. These interactions sharpen your ability to listen actively and to articulate complex ideas in accessible ways.

Fifth, invest in continuous learning. Read case studies that showcase successful alignment between IT and business, and note how leaders balanced the three lenses. Attend workshops or conferences that focus on leadership in hybrid environments. Formal education - such as an executive MBA with a tech focus - can reinforce theoretical frameworks and provide tools for practical application.

Finally, build a personal network of mentors and peers who embody different lenses. A mentor who is a seasoned CIO can guide you on abstraction strategy, while a peer who is a frontline manager can keep you grounded in operational realities. Through regular conversations, you’ll refine your perspective, learn new vocabulary, and stay attuned to evolving industry trends.

By embracing these steps, leaders can move beyond rigid categorizations and develop a nuanced, adaptable approach to management. This agility not only improves internal collaboration but also equips the organization to respond swiftly to market shifts, technological disruptions, and evolving stakeholder expectations.

About Paul Glen

Paul Glen is an IT management consultant and the author of the award‑winning book “Leading Geeks: How to Manage and Lead People Who Deliver Technology” (Jossey‑Bass Pfeiffer, 2003). He regularly speaks for corporations and national associations across North America. For more information go to: info@paulglen.com