Oh boy!
Just about every manager I've ever know had not one, not two nor even three of those faults but usually the whole set, and then some (probably provided as part of the management rule book.
Scary, only two managers I have ever known who were leaders.
Every point he made I had reams of examples coming up from the depths of my memory.
You know, business isn't new. Modern Business practices evolved out of the Phoneticians etc, and the Venicians even gave us accounting. These faults have always been present and always will be. The point is that business works even with all these faults.
I like the US Army recruiting slogan "Be all you can be". This never appears in business.
Do only as much as you need to to keep your job or a job.
Success is not measured as current position Vs where you could be if you were perfect, it is measured against the bottom line" were we profitable?
Most KPIs are a set of measures that don't actually measure anything really useful and are mostly based on how did we do this wek compared to last week. Some are designed for the short term and counter-productive for the long term.
Success is not even about not failing... if the company goes down the tubes, some other company ill buy it and guarantee jobs for some of the managers in the new ownership.
In one company, the joke going round was "How do you get X Y and Z (the directors who had bought out the company) to manage a £12M pound company?" Answer: "Give them a £24M company to manage."
True.
They ruined the company but sold it on at a profit. And secured jobs in the new company. They considered themselves successful Why, if that was a measure of success, would they want to turn their £24M company into a £36M company? What do they care that their success was based on demotivating people?
Programs like this and Investors in People and so on are all transient flavour of the month management gimmicks to show they care and are "modern". However, once done soonest forgotten and back to the old ways. Why? cos it is easier to demotivate than not.
There at the end he suggests surveying the workers..... only a good manager would do that and by definition, a good manager wouldn't need to... bad managers will never do that. Bad managers don't care if they are bad managers, they just care about the end of the month figures and how to (a) claim what credit there is going and (b) how to excuse or blame when things are bad "oh the market is down at the moment", "We are doing better than our competitors"
No one ever wants to know if they are doing the very best that the situation allows.
This presentation is, of course, yet another outside consultancy thing (even though outside consultants were one of the problems they identified) and they will get rich providing these seminars but they will never solve the problems (and if they did they'd have to find something else to do).
Interesting but but all it is is a nicely packeged summary of a lot of things we've all seen and experienced and which we all know don't really affect "success" as defined by managers. This won't change anything except, by allowing Managers to say they've been consulting specialist" enables them to show they've "tried" and are "modern managers". Of course, they are too busy to actually do anything about it and well, we ain't that bad anyway.
Change in a corporate structure requires a top down lead and it requires that everyone should be aligned with the corporate goals. These things are like mission statements, they only means something the day they are created or viewed but after that they are ignored.
Sure there are some truths there. Investors in People did their survey a company I once worked for.
Did their interviews, compiled their results and guess what, the message was not what the management wanted to hear.
They didn't want to hear all these things (most especially bout communication failures) and most especially because the problem was not, as they expected, with the workforce, but it was with the management. Did they change? no. Nor will any initiatives such as this. These guys will sell the seminars and may even sel some consulting services but once they've left the factory gates, its business as usual.
My favorite nugget from the piece is "Hire motivated people and then don't de-motivate them".
I do hope that managers can get the points brought out (even though they are veiled/sugar coated in humor). Like JMW, I have also seen most, if not all aspects of impedership mentioned in the various bosses I have had over the years.
One that was not mentioned was "Don't come to me with a problem unless you have at least one solution." Now if I have a solution to a problem, why would I need to go to the boss with it rather than implementing it directly? Of course this assumes I have the authority to do so. Anyone been bit by implementing a solution without the boss's approval? So far I have not had that problem.
Its always good to run changes by your boss, just so you don't make them look clueless when they start questioning why something is happening in a particular way.
I usually have good luck with going into his office and starting off the conversation, "We've had this problem with X, I'm going to do Y." Then I hand him some supporting data. I usually get a , "That sounds good."
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I think that sometimes management "counts" on these things
happening. That way they have someone else to blame when things go wrong. It's a nice set of observations but you can't fight human nature....or can you?
Occasionally I have used management by neglect or impedership to my advantage by sending a memo or e-mail to my boss "Unless you indicate otherwise by X, my plan for Y is to do Z." That way, permission is implicit if they fail to respond. It does not always work but I have had more successes than failures with the method.
I understand it's funny, but from the boss' point of view that is just being efficient. Half of the time the person who asks the question already has a good solution in mind and just wants it confirmed. Problem solving should be delegated as much as possible. Ideally, IMHO, the only problems a boss should solve is conflicting holidays requests ;-)
