In this life youve gotta have a system, and your w orkers must be trained in using

it. You cannot have self-managed work groups if the participants dont have
access to all the relevent information they need to operate. Many companies have
ISO9000 certification these days, but it is often only window dressing. A good
computerised information system can be used to empower workers, and improve
their efficiency. It take a leader secure enough in themself, to let go and let their
workers self-actualise, and it certainly wont work where there is adversarialism,
or a dictatorship. The Management Manual should be the Training Manual !
However the leader must stay in control !
Reply
O FIDDLER SAYS:
07:07am | 26/08/11
Yes!!!! Leadership is such an under-rated quality which is lacking in so many
bosses these days. Having been through RMC in my younger days I deal with
bosses in a different environment, who have no integrity, bare level of
competence and whos attitude to dealing with problems is to simply ignore them
because its easier than dealing with difficult subordinates.
Simply put it to the head of a major organisation - how much does staff issues
cost you each year and relate the fact that most workplace issues stem from poor
management. A good boss will increase morale, decrease staff transfers (which in
itself is a major saving for any company) and increase output because the staff
will be if not happier then less pissed off. Instead most workplaces are run by
cliques with dishonesty, sucking up and backstabbing prolific. A decent (tough,
fair, honest and competent) boss tends to put an end to this,
Last of all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c
Reply
O MACCA SAYS:
07:28am | 26/08/11
Fiddler, couldnt agree more.
Having just joined a company full of technical experts and Engineers, leadership
qualities, even in very senior positions, are at a premium. Im even seeing
business decisions made because particular managers would prefer to either
outsource or do the work themselves, than empower people below them to do the
work.
The Australian approach of promoting the highest performer who had no
leadership skills is alive and well
Reply
O MARLEY SAYS:
08:46am | 26/08/11
@Macca - one of the big problems with organizations - and believe me its not
limited to Australia - is promoting the best technical expert (and Im using that
term in the broadest sense) into a management or supervisory role - the best
engineer becomes head of research or production; the best salesman becomes
sales manager; the best fighter pilot becomes wing commander.
Sometimes it works, but often it doesnt because the skills and qualities that make
you very good at delivering a job yourself arent the same ones required to get
other people to deliver that job. A lot of experts find it impossible to step back
from the immediate technical challenges and see the bigger picture. They
micromanage, they get caught up in minutiae, they try to do all the jobs
themselves, they compare how theyre staff do something with how they did it
back when they had the job - and they completely lack the real vision and
leadership needed to manage people or projects.
O TUBESTEAK SAYS:
01:20pm | 26/08/11
Not to disagree with marley because I think she is right in that sense, but I think
the best bosses are usually the ones who came up through the ranks.
The worst bosses are often those who have no idea of how the system works, or
how things are done, or even how to do them. They often make decisions that will
never work in practice.
The trick, to reflect what marley says, is to promote the ones that do have some
emtional intelligence and can see things beyond their own scope.
O MARLEY SAYS:
01:46pm | 26/08/11
@Tubesteak - oh I agree entirely. Organizations that think management skills are
generic and that they can therefore just parachute people in from other industries,
departments or whatever, often lose their way. Managers do need that technical
knowledge to understand the big picture. At the same time, though, to be
effective as a manager, you have to back away from that technical side and let the
new experts whove succeeded you handle the detail. As you go higher up the
chain, you lose more and more of that technical detail, but you replace it with a
broader vision of how things should work. Or thats the ideal - but not that many
people can make the transition.
O MAHHRAT SAYS:
07:33am | 26/08/11
@Kate, can you define Boss as opposed to middle manager?
What youve described is a cross between the two. This is especially true in the
Public Service, where fear of a lack of transparency (sometimes for good reason!)
means nobody has the Authority to either promote or to effective manage
underperforming staff at any level.
Ive got first-hand experience at this, and you simply cannot manage when you
are not given the appropriate authority.
Reply
O ACOTREL SAYS:
07:45am | 26/08/11
@Mahrat
It starts right at the top in the public service . We have politicians whove never
had a job, and lack the ability to delegate effectively, and tell others to get to
work. That inability goes right down to the second bottom rung. You just need to
learn to play the game - the system runs on bullshit !
O MARLEY SAYS:
09:05am | 26/08/11
@acotrel - with respect, when it comes to the civil service you dont know what
youre talking about.
I spent most of my working life in a public service (not the Australian one) - and
to a middle level public servant, the top of the ladder is not the Minister but the
Permanent Secretary. Ministers come and go - theyre the ultimate boss and
decision-maker of course - but the standards of the Department are set by the
senior civil servant, not the Minister. And Ive yet to encounter a permanent
secretary who couldnt delegate effectively.
And, Id remind you that most public servants have worked their way up through
the organization, which is what you yourself have defined as the ideal career path
for a manager.
The problem that Mahrat describes is one of extremely cumbersome HR rules
within the civil service, the high unionization of the work force, the appeal and
grievance process etc etc. A manager can be the best manager in the world, the
most inspirational leader, but if he has no capacity to get rid of consistently
underperforming staff, then his only option becomes to work around them. And,
obviously, if you have one unproductive, or worse, disruptive, team member,
youre going to have problems, not to mention that the organization as a whole
suffers from the time servers filling the ranks.
I personally think that the civil service needs to get a lot more rigorous on
performance assessments (I like the American State Department system of up or
out), and it needs to give its managers the authority to manage their staff. That
means an end to HR systems which protect the employee at the expense of the
organization, and ultimately the taxpayer.
O ACOTREL SAYS:
09:38am | 26/08/11
@Marley
A manager can be the best manager in the world, the most inspirational leader,
but if he has no capacity to get rid of consistently underperforming staff, then his
only option becomes to work around them.
There is an important lesson that managers must learn. - Its better to ask a
question than make a statement. A question requires an answer , and a
recalcitrant employee must become accountable, in making a statement as a
manager , you might have to defend it when you get it wrong. A guilt trip is often
more effective than a rant and rave !
If anyone should know about the public service, it is me ! The relationship
between Sir Humphrey Appleby, and Jim Hacker is real and alive today. In the
end the public servant must do the politicians bidding. And that is the reality of
the relationship between the Reserve Bank and the PM ! The public are whom
the public service serve !
O ACOTREL SAYS:
09:44am | 26/08/11
@Marley
And Ive yet to encounter a permanent secretary who couldnt delegate
effectively.
Get a job in the DOD ! Had to laugh when Brendan Nelson became minister, he
had two hopes - Buckleys and Nunn !
O MARLEY SAYS:
11:31am | 26/08/11
@acotrel - you missed my point. You cant hold people accountable if there are
no repercussions for poor performance. You can train staff, you can give them
performance goals, you can provide them with feedback, but none of it matters a
damn if they dont care and the system wont allow you to do anything about it.
You end up assigning their work to the competent staff, thereby punishing the
good performers, while they lounge around, collect their pay, and go home at the
end of the day with nary a care in the world.
O STEPHEN SAYS:
08:19am | 26/08/11
If workers are paid well, respected for the work they do, and are left alone to
complete tasks, then they wont need a boss : they know that it is in their interests
to do well and after a qualifying period, will also know that 10% of their salary
will be paid in company shares.
Its not bosses who are the barrier to good workmanship, but the top-end : the
Company.
Reply
O MARLEY SAYS:
11:34am | 26/08/11
Well, they do need a boss -not so much to give them orders, but to make sure they
know where they organization is going, to ensure that they have the training and
resources they need to do the job, to coach them through the rough bits, and to
solve the inevitable clashes of opinion and personality that occur from time to
time. Well, thats how I always thought of management, anyway.
O KATE SOUTHAM SAYS:
08:20am | 26/08/11
@Mahhrat David Peake spoke about the dangers of giving people responsibility
with no real authority. The botched customer service letter I referred to involved
people dealing with customer issues with no authority to fix problems. How can
we make a government a great place to work if people have management
responsibilities with no authority to truly manage their direct reports? Sounds
tortuous.
@acotrel Politicians are a great example of how not to lead. Finger pointing,
credit stealing, double talk, shouting and bullying - and that is just in parliament.
Reply
O SPORTY SAYS:
08:56am | 26/08/11
@acotrel
It starts right at the top in all sectors. Even if the CEO is a strong leader, often the
layers beneath them contain terrible leaders - demonstrating many of the bad
boss traits - yet go unaddressed by the CEO. Perhaps the CEO thinks they are
empowering their people deal with the situation directly. Perhaps the CEO is
simply avoiding it. The company culture is born and the pattern continues.
Reply
O TUBESTEAK SAYS:
08:56am | 26/08/11
A part of being a good boss is being able to make decisions and stick to them.
This requires foresight. Unfortunately, so many people lack on, two or all three of
these things.
Reply
O HMM SAYS:
09:20am | 26/08/11
Hi Kate, love your blogs. This is very timely for me. As you may remember I am
looking for another job and came across a strange issue. Last night I attended an
agency interview for a position and found myself in a time warp. I was
interviewed sargeant major style (similar to the style of the 1980s), the
recruitment consultant had not even looked at my CV when I turned up. She even
questioned the spelling of my surname, which is an incredibly easy to spell and
common name. She claimed we spoke on the telephone the day earlier, which did
not happen. She asked me the usual questions then proceeded to tell me she
needed my referee details before putting me forward for any jobs. I told her I was
happy to provide referee details but only if I was interested in pursuing the
position, as I do not want my referees unnecessarily bothered every time I enquiry
about a position. She then asked me if I had been to any previous interviews.
When I told her I had recently been for an interview she asked me the company
name, the position I applied for, who interviewed me, all the while she is writing
all this down on her notepad. Is this protocol? What has this person got to do
with my current skills and ability? The cracker was she then told me that if I
progressed to interview stage with their client and an offer was made she would
then have to ring my current boss and do a reference check with him. I cant
believe they would do reference checks after an offer is made. Am I expected to
resign one day and expect my boss to give a glowing reference the day after? I
already told her I had three referees, one from my current position (not my boss
obviously, however a former 2IC) and referees from my two prior positions, one
dating back to 2007. I have a plethora of written references from years gone by
that I do not use, but I would seriously prefer the old fashioned written reference,
preferably on letterhead, as it is something you can always take with you, is less
easy to fraudulently obtain, as opposed to ringing someone for a reference and
hoping they really are the CEO/MD/GM ,insert senior title.
What are your thoughts Kate? I am withdrawing my application with this major
recruitment company on the basis they were totally unprofessional. In addition, I
left the meeting last night without even knowing one iota about the position
description of the job I am applying for or indeed the company name.
Reply
O HUGO SAYS:
10:43am | 26/08/11
An engineer acquaintance once applied for a new job. He walked into the room
and saw a little chair sitting alone in the middle of the room. At the back where 3
people sitting in a panel all facing tiny chair in the middle. Engineer summed this
up walked over to the panel (ignoring the chair) shook their hands, introduced
himself and asked them if this is how they intend to conduct the interview
(pointing to the chair). The panel members said yes. He said Thankyou for your
time, Im withdrawing my application as I dont believe I want to work for this
organisation. Bloody hero.
O KATE SOUTHAM SAYS:
12:23pm | 26/08/11
Under privacy legislation, recruiters/employers are supposed to gain your
permission before contacting nominated referees.
This recruiter might just super cautious to ensure her client gets to meet only
qualified candidates. Nothing wrong with you sticking to your guns about not
wanting your current employer contacted. No one wants their current employer
contacted when they are job hunting on the quiet. Her asking about other roles
and not telling you anything about the role is fishy. I hope she wasnt just getting
leads out of you re the other roles you are going for. No one needs to say anything
past that they are interviewing for other roles.
Written references are not credible. Sorry, Yours might be but any hiring manager
or recruiter worth their salt should verify the facts by talking to the referee by
phone - preferably through a landline and reception to confirm they are who they
say they are, in the role claimed.
O PAPACHANGO SAYS:
12:36pm | 26/08/11
You should follow some simple rules with recruitment agencies.
1. The must undertake NEVER to pass your CV along to a client without first
seeking your explicit approval AND telling you who the client and what the job
is. They must seek your permission and tell you who it is theyre sending it to
each time.
2. you will only ever provide a referees contact details in response to a specific
role.
3. Letterheads are actually much easier to fake than a phonecall, and a phone-
check is much more valuable to a potential employer, but you must control this
process. That includes being told when a reference check is happening so you can
warn your referee to expect a call.
4. They have no right to know about other roles youre applying for, and in anc
case the other potential role might be confidential.
Youre expected to respect confidentiality and not talk about salary details etc.
Most good agencies will respect these rules. and they should do the same.If they
wont, dont deal with them - theyre shonks.
O HUGO SAYS:
10:08am | 26/08/11
Interesting read. I disagree with the opening about the added stress of being
boss. Many surveys show that increasing stress in a workplace goes down the line
not up it. To put it another way most organisations that bother to audit it find the
higher the pay packet the more free time you have. Of course there are exceptions
but as a general principle its been shown to be pretty consistent. Might well
explain the number of people who post here claiming to be the boss.
To add to your list off things to check if youre the boss I would definitely add
trying to stay objective. One thing Ive seen in organisations is the tragic way
good bosses can stick up for other bad bosses. E.g. If there is a management team
of 5 people, 4 of them are competent but they appoint a fifth person to
management who is utterly incompetent. Staff tell management this, but of course
they wont do anything about it because to admit they made a horrible
appointment would make them lose face. The horrible boss stays and everyone
under them leaves, often to join the competition.
Reply
O QWERTY SAYS:
01:09pm | 26/08/11
as a wbanker i found that email comment hilarious! im currently a quit-stay
Reply
O IBAST SAYS:
03:26pm | 26/08/11
The positive about having a bad boss is you get to learn how not to do it. I had a
boss who wouldnt pay people their due in an attempt to save money. The
turnover of staff meant it cost him more in the end. Not to mention workplace
moral.
I had another who was a bully and inconsistent in instructions. He would give
you a bollocking for doing what he told you to do, when it didnt work out,
despite the fact you originally proposed the opposite.
I had another who was an absolute micro-manager. He wasnt doing his job
because he was doing yours all the time.
I disagree with Hugo regard added stress. What Kate didnt point out is the added
responsibility and accountability of a management position. Once you get above
a lower management position accountability rises exponentially. This means the
smallest stuff up can cost you your livelihood. Some days I just want to go and be
a builders labourer.
Reply
O QWERTY SAYS:
05:50pm | 26/08/11
this senior manager in my office is about to hold a meeting about ... well the
invite didnt even bother to say! and he has scheduled it for 4pm-5pm just to
make sure no one leaves early on a friday. Wow, special effort mate - little things
like this are what really do affect morale, bless it seems so obvious to me as an
underling what is this guy doing?!!
Reply
O DAN SAYS:
11:22am | 27/08/11
Qwerty, hes probably making sure you earn your money and not skive off.
Youve defined your problem - youre an underling and with an attitude like that,
are destined to remain one.