You're the boss, how do you want to motivate your employees?
If you were a Big Big Boss, what do you think would be the best ways to motivate your employees so as to get better performance out of them?
Inspired by this lecture by a failed lawyer, about what social scientists (including economists) have learned about motivation and incentives (extrinsic and intrinsic ones) over the course of the past few decades:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Find me a transcript, and maybe we'll talk.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If you look at the top right corner of the beige box, there's a link that says "open transcript"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There is no beige box on my screen.
:edit: Found one elsewhere
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 07-15-2010 at 06:13 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I've been a boss now for five years and responsible for motivating hundreds of different people and can categorically state that the way to motivate people is:
Spoiler:
Or rather the column to the right of the page that includes a list of other possibly related lectures etc.
I'm reluctant to just steal the transcript, so here's a better solution: once you have the page open, enter the following into the url-bar
should workCode:javascript:void(showTranscript());
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Naturally people are different. We have companies everywhere that try to use salaries, pay-raises, bonuses, perks etc as rewards in the hopes of motivating their employees and improving their performance (or simply keeping themOriginally Posted by RandBlade
"Different strokes" might be a reward in and of itself, by which I mean an employer that takes a personalised approach
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Flexibility, time off, understanding, praise, opportunities.Naturally people are different. We have companies everywhere that try to use salaries, pay-raises, bonuses, perks etc as rewards in the hopes of motivating their employees and improving their performance (or simply keeping them
The only way to be a successful manager is to be personalised. You're not actually managing if you're not personalised."Different strokes" might be a reward in and of itself, by which I mean an employer that takes a personalised approach
Set clear expectations of what you want done and then set up a system that awards those employees who do it.
Except in a lot of areas in a post-industrial economy "clear expectations of what you want done" isn't what maximizes those profits your business wants. Unless your idea of "what you want done" is something incredibly vague like just "results" in which case your idea of clear expectations pretty much goes out the window.
I realize you don't want to believe it, but all those clear tasks with straightforward processes which are plainly your comfort area, is not where profits are maximized. Where the real money is made, are places like Google. Which is not an environment you would ever be at all happy in.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That is ridiculously simplistic.
"Clear expectations" you can primarily give to someone in a brainless, robotic job. For the most serious of jobs the expectations are not always so clear - and those are the harder ones to manage.
Secondly what "awards" one person reacts to are not what another one does - or even what that one person would in a different situation.
Minx: If you want a serious answer to this question, the best answer to this that I've ever heard is a model called "Situational Leadership II". To quickly summarise and simplify it, in that there are 4 main categories of people which require 4 completely different types of management. People are categorised by their commitment to the task and their competence at it
D1 Enthusiastic Beginners - Someone new to a job/task will not need much encouragement (they're excited to start with/high commitment) but will need a lot of direction (they don't know what they're doing/low competence)
D2 Disillusioned Learner - Struggling after starting, the job was harder than expected and they've made a few mistakes. So low on confidence while still low in competence - will need both high support and high direction.
D3 Capable, but Cautious Performer - Knows what they're doing now (Higher competence) but still lacking in confidence. Need support but less direction.
D4 Self-Reliant Achiever - Is both confident and competent at the task. Can be told what to do and they'll decide how to do it and get it done, needs low support and low direction.
The management styles for all 4 groups of people have to be different. But equally important, no individual person is a "D2" or "D4" at everything, its for that specific task - you could be D4 at one job, but a total newbie D1 at something else.
Lewk's incredibly simplistic model wouldn't work the same for all 4 groups of people, people need the kind of support they as individuals need right now.
Rand sounds like a good manager.
It also depends on what Boss means, where the boss is in the hierarchy, how large the structure is, if it's centralized or de-centralized, how decisions and autonomy are delegated. Executive management or middle manager or team leader, but the principles can be the same.
Some of the most successful large businesses act almost like sports teams. From one huge body to smaller units, each competing within but having a common Team Spirit thing. Walmart is like that. They call their store workers Associates, have teams, team leaders, regional managers, rah rah. Their corporate meetings are almost like small cheer squads (with color-coded t-shirts and everything), held in large stadium type places for the larger group, giving awards and mixing entertainment with business plans.
Meant to inspire and motivate, so they go back to their individual areas pepped up and pass it on.
*blush*Rand sounds like a good manager.
I hope so. I'm in a bit of a dog-eat-dog world, I've made many mistakes and a few years ago might have reacted like Lewk myself, but you learn with experience. If you try to treat everyone the same you'll end in failure.
Another disagreement I have with people is about being too protective. My main aim in any role I've had for years now is to make myself redundant. If I can afford to train someone on a lower pay-grade than myself to do some of what I'm doing, why shouldn't they? Frees me up to do something else.
My company can be like thatSome of the most successful large businesses act almost like sports teams. From one huge body to smaller units, each competing within but having a common Team Spirit thing. Walmart is like that. They call their store workers Associates, have teams, team leaders, regional managers, rah rah. Their corporate meetings are almost like small cheer squads (with color-coded t-shirts and everything), held in large stadium type places for the larger group, giving awards and mixing entertainment with business plans.
Meant to inspire and motivate, so they go back to their individual areas pepped up and pass it on.
I imagine a very small business might have a harder time 'motivating' employees. Especially retail shops that have high turn-over rates to begin with.
<My son works at a place like that, tiny pizza shop, not much room for upward mobility. The owner doesn't have plans to expand or add other restaurants, so he ends up with one general manager and a bunch of teens with short term goals.
Needless to say, my kid is looking around for other jobs that are more than just a paycheck. Even though he's valuable enough to train the new kids and act as assistant manager/cook/delivery driver/dish washer/cashier/server -- and this job is temporary -- the owner could really give a flying fuck.>
Rand- But isn't half the battle hiring people who at least seem to fit within the range of motivation/skills you want? Arguably that's half the "battle".
PS- Why can't you go to Vegas? It's the armpit of America after all.
Most things are when you get down to it.That is ridiculously simplistic.
What percentage of jobs are you looking at being complex? And the expectations are of course tailored to the position."Clear expectations" you can primarily give to someone in a brainless, robotic job. For the most serious of jobs the expectations are not always so clear - and those are the harder ones to manage.
For example - fast food. Your expected to offer to value size the meal. Clear expectation for a low tier job.
Another example. Computer programmer. X number of lines of code, Y number of bugs and Z deadline. Its not "work till your done." Clear expectations doesn't mean punishing innovation it does mean that everyone is clear as to what is important and what lines you can or can not cross. Once again uncertainty is what you want to avoid.
Of course different things motivate different people. That's why its vague. Some like recognition. Some prefer financial bonuses. Others want a desired schedule or flexibility when taking time off. But the "carrot" must be something that can be earned and its obvious to all how it was earned. That way the proper behavior is modeled for others. Its all about incentives. Finding the right incentive to coax out the higher performance is the line manager and highers job.Secondly what "awards" one person reacts to are not what another one does - or even what that one person would in a different situation.
Too bad your public school didn't teach you grammar, spelling, punctuation, contractions, or possessive pronouns, huh Lewk? Maybe your teachers did not make the expectations clear enough for you, or passed you from 5th grade to 6th instead of holding you back. Avoiding your uncertainty. Too much work?
Someone should have beat you with a carrot stick to teach you proper English.
Indeed. In fact I'd say there are two key steps first: Interviewing and Setting Expectations. I always prefer to start the process of setting expectations during the interview too, just a few keywords here and there that may not even sink in to the candidate but they're important to me.
However you can motivate people whom you wouldn't have hired still - and in many companies the person you manage isn't somebody you personally hired. I recently took over a failing business, it hadn't been ran too well by the previous owner since his wife was involved in a car crash two years ago and the team had been sort of neglected. Which meant a lot of people were stuck in bad habits, as well as almost everybody being over a years service which means under British law I couldn't just remove them (anyone under 12 months is "probationary", after 12 months it has to be a "fair" dismissal). After 1 week nobody had left yet and I'd started to get impressions of everybody, there were just 2 in probationary period and I seriously expected to be forced to let one go - he had a bad attitude. After 7 weeks the one with a bad attitude had been turned around and is now a surprising gem, all others in one particular category (there were 2 main job positions) no longer work there. By raising the standards beyond what they were used to, they quit. I'm OK with that.
Some of them, with the right training and expectations in the first place could have been good possibly. But the funny thing is every single one of them had been given a pay rise. On day one of us taking over. We pay more as a company and everyone got a pay-rise and many took a pay-cut upon resigning to go elsewhere where it would be easier.
Anyone who thinks its all about MONEY is kidding themselves.
[EDIT]In a large company as you go through the ranks though someone else likely trained and hired your staff, or multiple people did. In scheduled a promotion soon which means that my current employees will now be someone else's direct responsibility and mine only indirectly. Instead my direct responsibility will be my current peers. Now some of those I personally trained up to be my replacement at previous locations but most were not. And even those that were have no longer been my responsibilty for a while but instead my peer. In my new job nobody will directly join the company any more as I'll be too senior for that, I'll have no entry-level staff directly reporting to me. I'll still be hiring but they'll then be reporting to somebody else at first. Not being able to do that specific level of hiring and firing is going to be something new to me and a new challenge.[/EDIT]
Its one thing us all going to Alton Towers etc for two days, but you don't go to Vegas for a day or two and who's going to run the business for 3 weeks if we're all away? Besides, I'm saving up to buy a new house, its nearly built. Very expensive year for us this year, we're not taking an international holiday this year. Maybe next year.PS- Why can't you go to Vegas? It's the armpit of America after all.
No, that's where you're wrong - and its noticing and dealing with the complexities and nuances that seperates the great from the acceptable - and its only through being great that a company can make large profits.Most things are when you get down to it.
I don't know, I've not studied it. But to various extents almost all jobs are complex. Robotic jobs afterall have a tendency nowadays to be done by robots.What percentage of jobs are you looking at being complex? And the expectations are of course tailored to the position.
I have a history of having worked in Fast Food, I worked in McDonald's at University and trust me when I say you're wrong. It may be a low tier job but even for that you've got to use your initiative. Yes offering to upsell is one requirement, but another is keeping yourself busy. Finding things to clean or do while its quiet etcFor example - fast food. Your expected to offer to value size the meal. Clear expectation for a low tier job.
You have your expectations but if any of my employees just "work to rule" then I'd consider them lazy. If any manager gets no more out of his employees than them "working to rule" then he's probably a bad manager.
I know there are computer programmers here and I've done some in the past but I've never been told to write "X number of lines of code". Again, if it did then that is overly-restrictive for anyone with a modicum of self-sufficiency.Another example. Computer programmer. X number of lines of code, Y number of bugs and Z deadline. Its not "work till your done." Clear expectations doesn't mean punishing innovation it does mean that everyone is clear as to what is important and what lines you can or can not cross. Once again uncertainty is what you want to avoid.
Going back to the model above "X number of lines of code" may work for a newbie D1, but by the time someone's experienced (D4) "work until you're done" is much more sensible. Probably with your specifics being "your code has to achieve at a minimum X, Y and Z and I would like it done by next Friday". The programmer then determines themselves how they're going to achieve that.
Wrong again. Different things motivate everybody, based upon the circumstances. Furthermore how often can you give everything you mentioned? A schedule or flexibility is a semi-permanent thing, either you have a flexible schedule or you don't - you can't just give it and take it away based on the performance in the last hour or week. No company can afford to give financial bonuses every day, they're typically for more long-term performance. Furthermore anyone on a bonus is normally someone who has vague instructions - "I want you to make $1mn in sales at 40% cost at a minimum and you'll get a bonus of 10%". The requirements are there but how to do it isn't micromanaged. Anyone getting micromanaged as you circumscribed isn't generally on a reward program.Of course different things motivate different people. That's why its vague. Some like recognition. Some prefer financial bonuses. Others want a desired schedule or flexibility when taking time off. But the "carrot" must be something that can be earned and its obvious to all how it was earned. That way the proper behavior is modeled for others. Its all about incentives. Finding the right incentive to coax out the higher performance is the line manager and highers job.
Sometimes the "carrot" can be as simple as a figurative pat on the back, being told they're doing the job well. In fact, that is the number one carrot I give people and its personal, its not done in front of other people.
Last edited by RandBlade; 07-16-2010 at 11:09 AM.
He didn't say it was simple, he indicated what you said was simplistic. That it tried to convey something was far more simple or straightforward than is actually the case. I.e. you're wrong.Most things are when you get down to it.
Except that's STILL only really true for a subset of tasks performed in the modern economy. People need to make a living of course, and different people have different situations, but motivating people effectively is very much NOT all about the incentives.Of course different things motivate different people. That's why its vague. Some like recognition. Some prefer financial bonuses. Others want a desired schedule or flexibility when taking time off. But the "carrot" must be something that can be earned and its obvious to all how it was earned. That way the proper behavior is modeled for others. Its all about incentives. Finding the right incentive to coax out the higher performance is the line manager and highers job.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Punching.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
heh, Lewk conflates "simple" and "simplistic," also conflates "elite" and "elitist."
Reminds me of sexy and sexist in Spinal Tap.
And yes, you do sound like a good manager, RB.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Most of the best companies have a very simple strategy. Take a look at great companies like Wal-Mart... and no you can't tell me they got to be great because their managers were focused on the nuances of what their employees motivations were...No, that's where you're wrong - and its noticing and dealing with the complexities and nuances that seperates the great from the acceptable - and its only through being great that a company can make large profits.Wal-Mart's strategy is very simple. Cut prices. Manager their inventory towards lowering costs and relentlessly cut out inefficiencies. This is a bit far afield from managerial motivation but my point is this: simplicity works. If its too complicated for a lay person to understand then your just outsmarting yourself.
I guess it depends on the definition of complex. And again its not about making the job simple its about creating an incentive and role models for other employees to emulate. Most jobs ARE simple. From the IRS tax preparer, the waitress or to the school teacher. Most jobs have typical routines that are gone through every day.I don't know, I've not studied it. But to various extents almost all jobs are complex. Robotic jobs afterall have a tendency nowadays to be done by robots.
Awesome. So you promote the guy who always finds things to do even when its not busy. You've just set an expectation that if you want to get ahead find things to do when its not busy.Yes offering to upsell is one requirement, but another is keeping yourself busy. Finding things to clean or do while its quiet etc
OK so that sounds like a better expectation to me. As long its clear what the result you are looking for is what the relevant awards are for it (continued employment, recognition, pats on the back, whatever) then it meets my definition for a good expectation that motivates employees.Going back to the model above "X number of lines of code" may work for a newbie D1, but by the time someone's experienced (D4) "work until you're done" is much more sensible. Probably with your specifics being "your code has to achieve at a minimum X, Y and Z and I would like it done by next Friday". The programmer then determines themselves how they're going to achieve that.
Why talk about just last week? Many companies rate employees quarterly and annually.Wrong again. Different things motivate everybody, based upon the circumstances. Furthermore how often can you give everything you mentioned? A schedule or flexibility is a semi-permanent thing, either you have a flexible schedule or you don't - you can't just give it and take it away based on the performance in the last hour or week.
Yes. So come in each day and do your job (or exceed what you need) and you get your raise/bonus at the end of the year. Why do you think setting good expectations only applies to short term stuff?No company can afford to give financial bonuses every day, they're typically for more long-term performance.
Clear expectations != micro manged! It just means you have goals and meeting those goals gets you your reward.Anyone getting micromanaged as you circumscribed isn't generally on a reward program.
Mankind is motivated by two things. The stick and the carrot. Making it clear what actions get a carrot and what actions get a stick is vital. When someone does well its important that praise and reward are done openly so others can aspire to do the same. Or should senior leadership pat everyone on the back individually in order to motivate their company? How likely or efficient is that going to be?
I'm not saying that's a bad idea. But the original question was how the "Big Boss" should motivate their employees to get better performance. And my response is to set clear expectations and award people for following through and do so openly so others can emulate that behavior. Your ideas sound great for a front line manager to deal with their direct subordinates. But it really doesn't apply to a CEO or HR head to motivate an entire company.Sometimes the "carrot" can be as simple as a figurative pat on the back, being told they're doing the job well. In fact, that is the number one carrot I give people and its personal, its not done in front of other people.
Fuzzy -
It is always about incentives. Everything is about incentives. Every single action (other then blind instinctual reactions) are done based on the costs and benefits of doing so. Sometimes people's reasoning is shallow but its always there.People need to make a living of course, and different people have different situations, but motivating people effectively is very much NOT all about the incentives.
I know this is off topic, but Rand's mostly right here. Nobody gets told to write "X lines of code". That's like telling a carpenter to "Use X number of nails". The idea is silly, easily gamed, and counter-productive.
edit: There were some companies in the past who actually did pay per line of code. This resulted in predictably terrible code ("Hey guys, check out my thousand line bubble-sort!"). The same lesson was learned for companies that tried to pay per bug fixed ("Hey guys, check out my bubble-sort with five bugs per line! Cha-ching!").
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/bu...shirt.html?hpw
You think the people in that factory aren't more motivated than they were when they were getting paid 75% less?
Hope is the denial of reality
What did Lewk say? Motivation is nothing more than reward incentives. What did I say? Motivation in a modern economy *which, by the by, those people aren't in* is definitely NOT all about reward incentives. Now, what objection were you trying to make again?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No, Walmart's strategy seems simplistic on the surface, but it's definitely more than just cutting prices or managing inventories. They have a clear philosophy of decentralized management, to the point where their "shelf stackers" are called Associates.We'll have to agree to disagree. Most of the best companies have a very simple strategy. Take a look at great companies like Wal-Mart... and no you can't tell me they got to be great because their managers were focused on the nuances of what their employees motivations were...
Typical routines don't make a job "simple". IRS tax preparers need to know a certain amount of tax law; waitresses need to juggle all sorts of things; teachers aren't just automatons.I guess it depends on the definition of complex. And again its not about making the job simple its about creating an incentive and role models for other employees to emulate. Most jobs ARE simple. From the IRS tax preparer, the waitress or to the school teacher. Most jobs have typical routines that are gone through every day.
But some incentives are really very complicated. It isn't just a simple cost/benefit ratio. Just ask people who work in health care or education, or those who work for non-profit groups, how they make the trade-offs of lost time with their young children or families. The carrot isn't always money or career advancement. The reasoning isn't always shallow. But they still need occasional motivation or inspiration from "managers", unless you want wholesale burn-out from some of the best people on the team.Mankind is motivated by two things. The stick and the carrot.....
...It is always about incentives. Everything is about incentives. Every single action (other then blind instinctual reactions) are done based on the costs and benefits of doing so. Sometimes people's reasoning is shallow but its always there.
A lot of interesting thoughts here
I have a question for Lewkowski. It seems to me that your approach would require a manager to know close to everything for it to be perfect, much like a planned society would require its rulers to know everything in order to make great plans. How would you, as a manager, or as the Big Boss, get around the problem of not knowing ahead of time exactly what to reward and what to punish?
Eg. how would you encourage your employees to take initiative to do things that aren't on the existing checklist? How would you go about encouraging them to try out new ideas, to be creative?
How would you go about making the most of the resources of a group of different individuals?
What's your take on a scenario where you have two salesmen who both do a good job of selling things for you, one through being gorgeous and personable, and the other through being very knowledgeable?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A final question for Lewkowski:
From your posts I gather that you believe the manager's most important task is to set clear expectations, in various ways. Apart from setting expectations (through reward or punishment), do you think a manager has any other important tasks or roles?
Eg. in conflict-resolution, in maintaining a good and friendly working environment, in helping employees handle stress, etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nothing is wrong with simple. The most profound ideas of the world can be boiled down to a certain set of simple concepts. I'm not sure why people view it with such a negative connotation. Most jobs have routines, that is really all I'm saying.Typical routines don't make a job "simple". IRS tax preparers need to know a certain amount of tax law; waitresses need to juggle all sorts of things; teachers aren't just automatons.
Of course its not always shallow. And people are motivated by different things. One person may be all about the money. Others prefer to "make a difference" and yet others prefer jobs that challenge them, or some want jobs where they can coast. People pick different careers in jobs for all sorts of reasons. The point is that those decision are influenced by the incentives and disincentives associated with them.But some incentives are really very complicated. It isn't just a simple cost/benefit ratio. Just ask people who work in health care or education, or those who work for non-profit groups, how they make the trade-offs of lost time with their young children or families. The carrot isn't always money or career advancement. The reasoning isn't always shallow.
Aimless -
Very different concept then a planned society. Planned society is tyranny. Planned workplace is a job. Would you like your job to be your entire life?It seems to me that your approach would require a manager to know close to everything for it to be perfect, much like a planned society would require its rulers to know everything in order to make great plans. How would you, as a manager, or as the Big Boss, get around the problem of not knowing ahead of time exactly what to reward and what to punish?
And what do you mean by knowing ahead of time? Working hard, showing up on time, dressing appropriately, if your customer service do X, Y and Z (smile, good attitude and be helpful for example), if your a nurse make sure patients are comfortable and given appropriate medications, whatever the case may be. Whatever industry your in there will be best practices to follow and emulate.
Reward people who innovate and save money for the company. IE they share part of the profits of the money saving idea if its successfully implemented. Once again you are awarding a positive behavior (looking for improvement) and then doing it openly by displaying the employees who came up with the idea along with what they earned (the financial compensation above their paycheck).Eg. how would you encourage your employees to take initiative to do things that aren't on the existing checklist? How would you go about encouraging them to try out new ideas, to be creative?
Different ways of getting the same thing accomplished are fine.What's your take on a scenario where you have two salesmen who both do a good job of selling things for you, one through being gorgeous and personable, and the other through being very knowledgeable?
Yes.From your posts I gather that you believe the manager's most important task is to set clear expectations, in various ways. Apart from setting expectations (through reward or punishment), do you think a manager has any other important tasks or roles?
All of these are perfectly normal useful things to do. Nothing wrong with that at all. Big picture summed up into three sentences I would go with what I said originally. Most important thing to do is set expectations for what people should do (behaviors, tasks goals whatever) and then reward them openly for their successes to encourage others to emulate them. Very basic and at the core of what I think would motivate the greatest number of folks.Eg. in conflict-resolution, in maintaining a good and friendly working environment, in helping employees handle stress, etc.
Firstly,
I've been a "boss" of some sort or other since 1995 (damn that's longer than it seems) - back then I was a "Leading Hand" which nowadays would most likely be described as a Team Leader. I was in charge of 6 employees, 2 were qualified tradespeople, 2 were apprentices and 2 were TA's (Trade Assistant), I learned a hell of a lot from that experience. I then worked in a similar position with 12 people under my "leadership" until 2003. From 2003-2009 I was Production Manager for a company manufacturing both here and in Asia. From 2009 until now I have been General Manager of that same company and I have a fairly flat hierarchy below me - 1 Warehouse Manager and 1 Production Supervisor and 2 team leaders, overall around 50 staff plus offshore manufacturing facilities which require my attention plus importing goods from India, South Africa, Taiwan, China and Vietnam.
I do think Randy summed up very well and I agree that motivating people is not such a simple task and there is definitely not a "one size fits all" approach. I am sure different industries have different problems and what motivates one individual can get another individual offside, or even downright hostile. Not everyone is motivated by money or greed either, some of my lowest paid workers have become more productive through other benefits - one example was offering factory workers "school hours" where they can work a 6 hour day allowing them to drop off and pick up their kids. I can assure you that some of those employees have proven they can do as much work in 6 hours as many others do in 8 hours.
Throughout my time I have found the best thing I can do as a "motivator" is make the workplace "happy", that may sound corny but believe me I have worked in "unhappy" places and even when you are productive and being financially rewarded if you are unhappy at work it leads to a myriad of problems. I tell my leaders to be positive, don't rant and rave when people make mistakes, make positive suggestions and while a stern rebuke may be required occasionally it should always be followed by constructive measures.
Managing staff is also unpredictable, you can go for months without so much as a hiccup yet in one week you can have a personal conflict between two staff (or more), an employee suffer a tragedy in their family and another suffer a relationship failure. You have to be capable of being close enough to these problems to know they're happening and help if possible but also professional enough not to get bogged down in them. Support your staff as much as you can when they have troubled times but also have the strength of character to know when enough is enough and it is time to move forward.
When you have skilled, talented people under your management give them the ability to use their skills and talent and reward them justly but never let them forget that you are the boss - I have seen Managers get treated like dirt by skilled employees because the Manager didn't know how to set and maintain the boundaries.
Above all: Don't be a miserable prick, nobody likes to work for a miserable prick.
Such is Life...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
