Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I think one thing you may have touched on but could use some elaboration is that managers should always communicate regularly with their team members. If this means creating a scheduled time and day to meet with each person then so be it. The company I work at is very open to talking to employees at all levels and it really fosters a sense of loyalty and openess that I believe lots of companies miss out on.
leadship skills is very important to a good manager,but it need more and more practices.
he must pay more attention to his subordinates,make them certain that they are the treasures of a company.As a result, they will spare no efforts to finish their tasks.
he must pay more attention to his subordinates,make them certain that they are the treasures of a company.As a result, they will spare no efforts to finish their tasks.
#11 Schedule regular 1-on-1s (weekly or bi-weekly) with your employees
I'd recommend doing this with your direct reports and requiring all of the managers on your team to do the same.
Because that is a standard part of the way I do things, I just assumed that as part of the mix, but I'm glad you pointed it out. It's something that is worth talking about more directly. I may do a separate article just on 1-on-1s.
I'd recommend doing this with your direct reports and requiring all of the managers on your team to do the same.
Because that is a standard part of the way I do things, I just assumed that as part of the mix, but I'm glad you pointed it out. It's something that is worth talking about more directly. I may do a separate article just on 1-on-1s.
I'd quit a job that required me to have weekly or biweekly formal one-on-one meetings with my manager. I don't like all that touchy-feely stuff. Not everyone responds well to that. For me, it's better to let me know what the expectations are and set up a mechanism - other than face-to-face meetings, which I have a deep-seated loathing for - to keep you informed of progress.
Not everyone works the same way. Rigid requirements such as "all my direct reports must meet with me one-on-one once a week, and must all do the same with their direct reports" drive good people away.
Not everyone works the same way. Rigid requirements such as "all my direct reports must meet with me one-on-one once a week, and must all do the same with their direct reports" drive good people away.
Well in order to be a good manager, I think you need to be observant enough to know if one of your subordinates would benefit from a weekly/bi-weekly 1-on-1 meeting. I think the key isn't necessarily to make it required but to make sure you let your subordinates know that you are open to the idea and that you encourage constant communication.
This also depends on your position and/or experience. The reason I initially said that good communication is key is because this is my first job out of college and therefore, it is very important for me to get continuous feedback.
So perhaps the #11 should focus on open communication and maybe certain recommendations (i.e. 1-on-1's) can be made on how to achieve this.
This also depends on your position and/or experience. The reason I initially said that good communication is key is because this is my first job out of college and therefore, it is very important for me to get continuous feedback.
So perhaps the #11 should focus on open communication and maybe certain recommendations (i.e. 1-on-1's) can be made on how to achieve this.
It can simply be a quick 10-minute update on the status of various projects. It doesn't necessarily have to happen face-to-face either. It can happen over the phone, or even via IM or e-mail if there's a lot of trust built-up between the manager and the IT pro.
However, it needs to happen regularly in most organizations. Otherwise, things get forgotten or shuffled under the rug and it's easy to get out-of-sync as priorities shift in the organization.
However, it needs to happen regularly in most organizations. Otherwise, things get forgotten or shuffled under the rug and it's easy to get out-of-sync as priorities shift in the organization.
I do think a regular status update should be happening; I just think managers, many of whom tend to be extroverts, get locked into the belief that any update has to happen in a face-to-face meeting. I loathe and dread face-to-face meetings. It's just a personality quirk of mine. I'm horribly phone-phobic, too. But email - or any other written communication - that I can, and will happily, do.
I hate to bring it up, but it sure sounds like you may have some issues. You even said yourself that you're phone-phobic and you immediately categorized in-person meetings as "touchy feely" stuff. I don't think that's right at all. I personally need all my staff to be able to meet with all kinds of people: developers, managers, VPs, etc. I would think someone who can't deal with in-person meetings has some kind of issue that needs to be addressed. I'm not saying that I believe in time-wasting meetings; I'm totally opposed to that. However, I can't have people on my team avoiding contact.
Good leaders adapt to the needs of their team members. And if I had server queen on my team, I would want to understand what really is behind his/ her "deep seated loathing" about 1-1 meetings and make the necessary adjustments. What I look for in my team members is the ability to adapt with changes because we live in a world that is in constant change. Those that use the term server queen uses could create a negative environment on a team.
These guidelines are fundamental to the success of project leadership. In a past life as the National Service & Training manager with Computacenter we learned how to improve Project Success rate to 99-100%. Now, as a consultant with Quadrant 1 International we sometimes run Project Leadership & Orientation workshops at the front-end of major projects.
The workshop consists of NLP based techniques to put a project team into the reality of a project before scoping the project stages, and before any software is started.
Imagine having completed your project, and the revalations that come from pseudo-hindsight. It's amazing how people can see, hear and sense tasks that don't appear when you go straight to the project schedule.
Project leaders can use this workshop to fully engage project teams with the reality of implementation.
David Molden
Quadrant 1 International
www.quadrant1.com
The workshop consists of NLP based techniques to put a project team into the reality of a project before scoping the project stages, and before any software is started.
Imagine having completed your project, and the revalations that come from pseudo-hindsight. It's amazing how people can see, hear and sense tasks that don't appear when you go straight to the project schedule.
Project leaders can use this workshop to fully engage project teams with the reality of implementation.
David Molden
Quadrant 1 International
www.quadrant1.com
While this was placed near the end of the list, giving your people the freedom to think is, IMO, second only to giving them the tools to work with.
The company where I've been the lead designer for 18+ years was recently sold to a larger corporation. Under the old rule, the owner was the CEO and the chief Engineer. He and the President (his wife) micro-managed everything from new designs to final production assembly and shipping. The staff had no real authority to make any improvements in anything.
Under the new management, our CEO is not only over us, but over two other companies as well. He doesn't have time to breathe down our necks every minute of everyday, and when a problem, or a new project comes up, it is our job to get it done as we think best. His only requirement is that we have come to an agreement between ourselves and the customers that our way is the best way to do it.
It makes one heck of a difference in all of our attitudes about working here. We now feel like the company values us and our thoughts rather than the way it was before.
The company where I've been the lead designer for 18+ years was recently sold to a larger corporation. Under the old rule, the owner was the CEO and the chief Engineer. He and the President (his wife) micro-managed everything from new designs to final production assembly and shipping. The staff had no real authority to make any improvements in anything.
Under the new management, our CEO is not only over us, but over two other companies as well. He doesn't have time to breathe down our necks every minute of everyday, and when a problem, or a new project comes up, it is our job to get it done as we think best. His only requirement is that we have come to an agreement between ourselves and the customers that our way is the best way to do it.
It makes one heck of a difference in all of our attitudes about working here. We now feel like the company values us and our thoughts rather than the way it was before.
Your experience provides a nice example of the contrast between management making too many of the decisions and having employees regularly making their own decisions.
It also shows that allowing/forcing employees to make decisions for themselves can improve the work atmosphere, too!
Thanks, Jason
It also shows that allowing/forcing employees to make decisions for themselves can improve the work atmosphere, too!
Thanks, Jason
Refering to the original list, here are my personal alternatives.
#1 Let the staff schedule their own work. This is right out of Scrum and XP (Extreme Programming) practices. Do not try to do all of the time estimates and planning for your staff so that you can assign them 40 hours of work per week. Prioritize the upcoming work and let the staff estimate the effort and then schedule the work accordingly.
#2, #3, #4 - Balance new work and old work, interesting work and boring work, challenging and easy work. For your staff to grow, you must occassionally assign members work that they are not good at. Face it, every job is going to have some boring work and the more familiar one becomes with the work, the less new and exciting it becomes. Be sure to dole out interesting and rote tasks fairly across your team. Lastly, make sure all team members have a shot at high visibility efforts. If it is a high risk effort, then limit participation to the better performers. If not, give everyone a fair opportunity to participate. Working on a high visibility effort can do wonders for attitudes.
#5 - I am not a believer in goals or MBO-like approaches. See "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn for a detailed discussion.
#7 - Take the blame. Accept full responsibility for the performance of your team regardless of any mistakes the team has made. Never pass the buck to any of your staff. See "Leadership Lessons of the Navy SEALs" by Jon Cannon and Jeff Cannon.
#8 - Get some success out of every project. Not every project will accomplish all of its scope, but each should accomplish some portion of the scope. Decompose tasks and work iteratively some that some delivered value results.
There is no job in management that is more difficult than the combination of taking full responsibility while delegating execution. Regardless of personal bullet lists, this is one of the overarching aims.
#1 Let the staff schedule their own work. This is right out of Scrum and XP (Extreme Programming) practices. Do not try to do all of the time estimates and planning for your staff so that you can assign them 40 hours of work per week. Prioritize the upcoming work and let the staff estimate the effort and then schedule the work accordingly.
#2, #3, #4 - Balance new work and old work, interesting work and boring work, challenging and easy work. For your staff to grow, you must occassionally assign members work that they are not good at. Face it, every job is going to have some boring work and the more familiar one becomes with the work, the less new and exciting it becomes. Be sure to dole out interesting and rote tasks fairly across your team. Lastly, make sure all team members have a shot at high visibility efforts. If it is a high risk effort, then limit participation to the better performers. If not, give everyone a fair opportunity to participate. Working on a high visibility effort can do wonders for attitudes.
#5 - I am not a believer in goals or MBO-like approaches. See "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn for a detailed discussion.
#7 - Take the blame. Accept full responsibility for the performance of your team regardless of any mistakes the team has made. Never pass the buck to any of your staff. See "Leadership Lessons of the Navy SEALs" by Jon Cannon and Jeff Cannon.
#8 - Get some success out of every project. Not every project will accomplish all of its scope, but each should accomplish some portion of the scope. Decompose tasks and work iteratively some that some delivered value results.
There is no job in management that is more difficult than the combination of taking full responsibility while delegating execution. Regardless of personal bullet lists, this is one of the overarching aims.
Hey Wayne - Thanks for taking the time to add your valuable notes on these points. The one area where I think we disagree a little bit is in terms of accountability. I feel like managers have to give employees clear objectives and hold them accountable for the results. Celebrate if things goes well and figure out why if expectations aren't met. The buck has to stop with managers, but managers also have to make employees responsible for their part of the execution.
My feelings concerning objectives were drasticly altered by reading Dr. W. E. Deming, who wrote smoething along the lines of "Once a task has been put into motion, its outcome has been determined. The result may not be known, but it has been decided."
An example is travelling by car. Once one walks out into the garage and gets in the car, it is of no use to say, "My objective is to be at work at 8:00 AM." The variables that will determine one's arrival time have already been set in motion. Did one start soon enough? Does the car have enough gas? Will the fan belt break? Will traffic be backed up? Does one know the directions?
Assigning tasks to staff is no different. Why should I decare an arbitrary timeline for the task? Why not have the person doing the task provide his best prediction? This is not say that the staff member does not need to justify his estimate nor provide milestones to track his progress, but it does mean that he has the responsibility for the work.
Likewise many of the criteria regarding the task are likely to be fuzzy and somewhat in conflict. Why should I evaluate the trade-offs and give my answer to the staff member? Why not let the staff member (or members) who will do the task determine the trade-offs?
Granted, the degree to which one will allow staff members to make their own decisions will depend upon the experience and skills of the individual staffers, but over time, the staff should take on more and more of the responsibilities.
I believe this approach aligns well with points 9 (Don't provide all the answers) and 10 (Let people know why). It does shift accountability, though. Instead of the staff member being responsible for meeting the manager's objectives at the end, it is the responsibility of the manager to prepare the staff member prior to the start of the task.
An example is travelling by car. Once one walks out into the garage and gets in the car, it is of no use to say, "My objective is to be at work at 8:00 AM." The variables that will determine one's arrival time have already been set in motion. Did one start soon enough? Does the car have enough gas? Will the fan belt break? Will traffic be backed up? Does one know the directions?
Assigning tasks to staff is no different. Why should I decare an arbitrary timeline for the task? Why not have the person doing the task provide his best prediction? This is not say that the staff member does not need to justify his estimate nor provide milestones to track his progress, but it does mean that he has the responsibility for the work.
Likewise many of the criteria regarding the task are likely to be fuzzy and somewhat in conflict. Why should I evaluate the trade-offs and give my answer to the staff member? Why not let the staff member (or members) who will do the task determine the trade-offs?
Granted, the degree to which one will allow staff members to make their own decisions will depend upon the experience and skills of the individual staffers, but over time, the staff should take on more and more of the responsibilities.
I believe this approach aligns well with points 9 (Don't provide all the answers) and 10 (Let people know why). It does shift accountability, though. Instead of the staff member being responsible for meeting the manager's objectives at the end, it is the responsibility of the manager to prepare the staff member prior to the start of the task.
I had to print that and keep it in my files. Wonderful suggestions and actions to follow.
Of course, there could be more, but its a great start.
Thank you
Of course, there could be more, but its a great start.
Thank you
Core is the Genesis....
Mentioned in the Point 1. where the Focus which need to aim towards a dimension. Leading oneself and others.. go in parity where the "reciprocal accommodations" are a necessity. Yet the "alignment" based on similarities does not give rise to arguments nor critical thinking as it prefers harmony...I feel strategic deviations are purely situational and prescribe the criteria to be adopted.....
satya
Mentioned in the Point 1. where the Focus which need to aim towards a dimension. Leading oneself and others.. go in parity where the "reciprocal accommodations" are a necessity. Yet the "alignment" based on similarities does not give rise to arguments nor critical thinking as it prefers harmony...I feel strategic deviations are purely situational and prescribe the criteria to be adopted.....
satya
great way....
Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Juboori
28.11.08
Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Juboori
28.11.08
hi,
Really good article, please go ahead with the same aritcles..
M C Bhagyaraj India
Really good article, please go ahead with the same aritcles..
M C Bhagyaraj India
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
