Be a leader/manager!

[beefche]

Dravin and I enjoy watching the shows on TV that deal with restructuring/remodeling restaurants. Each and every time, the problem with the restaurant is the owner/manager. These owners don't set rules/expectations with real consequences. Often, very often, these owners don't want to be mean, or they think of employees as family (and many times they are), or they don't want to "babysit" employees.

I find this same mentality at work. So many times, leaders at work do not provide constructive feedback nor just tell people they are wrong or in error for fear of being seen as mean.

Why? Why is it so hard to tell someone, "Hey, you did this wrong. Let me show you how to do it." ? Almost everyone I know desires to do better, desires to not make mistakes. As a leader, it is my responsibility to provide honest feedback. And that can be done kindly.

So, can someone explain to me why the reluctance? Why do you choose not to provide feedback to someone, even the most mundane feedback?

[pam]

Turn it around. How many times have you heard someone who has been given feedback by a leader cry about how they are being bullied and their manager is picking on them?

I think part of the problem is, we have become a society that thinks working is doing just enough to get by. Put in the time but not the effort.

[Anddenex]

I am able only to speak from my perspective and my experience. I have noticed in the workforce and other avenues of leadership that there are two prominent personality types: those that care about people and those that care about money.

Those that care about people are those that have a difficult time with instructive feedback because of the following: 1) They don't want to appear like their counterpart -- those that care solely about money (these individuals fit the mold of climbing the ladder of their incompetence). 2) They are unsure their instructive feedback is actually worth the time to instruct. They tend to believe people will eventually comprehend through group trainings. Address the concern in a large meeting. 3) These individuals tend to be perfectionist, replaying the scenario over and over and over. If they can see the instructive feedback as helpful they will continue. If they see their instructive feedback as one option of many (not just one way -- in other words they don't carry the attitude of, "It's my way or the highway.") They recognize there is more than one right way so they withhold their judgement. 4) They sincerely care about not offending people and their experiences (even when trying their best not to offend) have shown they are more likely to offend because they are not as charismatic as other people -- par level communication skills. 5) They may have not established proper boundaries up front.

The other personality type I have experienced as this: 1) They are not caring. 2) They care about money, and because they do, they don't care about how another person feels -- because it gets in the way of their personal objectives and goals. 3) They only love you when you make them look good. In other words, they only care about you when you are helping them achieve their financial and work objectives. 4) Numbers are more valuable than people.

Then you have the third personality and character type: 1) They care about both people and numbers. 2) They have a strong sense of self and do not enjoy offending people but recognize at times this may result from sincerely seeking to help people out -- to improve. 3) They are charismatic and have good people skills. 4) They typically are people that everybody tends to like -- hard to find any fault with them.

As mentioned in my first paragraph, I am speaking from my own experiences with these three types of behavior and personality traits.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Anddenex

[classylady]

I know I'm appreciative of constructive feedback and suggestions on how to do a better job. But, I have had some really terrible bosses with no tact. One in particular (and this is no exaggeration) would shout, saying "YOU'RE DOING THIS ALL WRONG", tear up my print out and throw it up in the air. Then tell me to "do it the right way"! I would have to go into the restroom and do some deep breathing and crying, before I could go back to my desk. That particular manager was able to get away with his behavior because he was a member of the family that owned the business. He knew he would never get fired. In this particular example, he was actually wrong, I was right, and he did come and apologize to me, which was a first. And he actually liked me. I know I was one of his favorite employees because I did my job without complaints, and he rarely got mad at me like he did some of the other employees.

I was a bit traumatized with that particular boss. I never wanted to come across as over-bearing, pompous, or rude in any of my dealings with employees.

Also, some people cannot take being told that they are doing something wrong. When I was a supervisor at 26 years old, I had an elderly employee (in his 70's), that simply could not accept that I could possibly be correct with any of the feedback I was giving him. I don't know if he was "old school" or what.

[bytebear]

I manage using a variation of the time out method. I criticize, correct, and sometimes reprimand, but I make sure to praise when they did things right after the fact. I do have some who take things personally, but I am one who is looking for a solution, not to point and blame. I have threatened to use shame techniques (calling people out), but I just want the problem solved, and that we all learn from that mistake so we don't repeat it.

One technique is to employ the "donutable offense." If someone does something so egregious that it affects the team, they must bring donuts to the team. That is their payment, and once payment is made, no one can lay blame again on that person. All is forgiven and forgotten.

Edited December 1, 2013 by bytebear

[Backroads]

This is why I don't consider myself leadership material. I like working independently, with some reasonable instructions. My first career of teaching was largely independent, and my second career in Scouting was much the same after our office manager retired and my boss saw no reason to hire a new one if he could just check on our progress every now and then.

When I worked at Scout Camp and was a leader over a bunch of teenagers and young adults, it was rather difficult to give feedback. Largely, because I wanted everyone to be like me and just do the job. When I did give feedback, I tended to be either too vague or too mean.

I think it would be wise for everyone to practice the art of constructive feedback, but I don't think everyone should always be in the position to give it.

[Dravin]

A lot of the people we see in these shows don't have restaurant experience, or even any management experience. I think it is easy, when one is not in management, to discount what managers actually do. Particularly if the managers you've worked for in the past haven't been good ones. At its core management is leadership but if you go to the jokes and standby stereotypes management is just a group of inept leeches and the company would just run itself better without any management.

If you take someone who thinks like that, or just simply doesn't understand the role and purpose of management that contributes to the situations like you see in the shows. Ignorance of what is involved in the positions they are supposed to be managing doesn't help either, we consistently see ill trained staff and owners/managers whose thinking basically boils down to, "It's simple job, they don't need training and instruction.*" So in the end you can get someone who doesn't understand their role, and doesn't understand the role of the people they manage. I think that's the worst cases we see.

So to give a bullet list of classifications (in my mind):

• It should run itself thinking (in short the above).
  
• Laziness, though this is a bit of a rarer one. These are small businesses on these shows and their livelihoods are at stake so they are usually invested, at least the owners. You usually see the laziness with hired managers.
  
• Someone who is spread so thin they aren't doing anything effectively.
  
• Personality issues, either from being a caustic person who can't be approached (and thus can't effectively lead), or someone who is so pliable they can't effectively lead either. The latter particularly applies to people who hire back problem employees when the waterworks start. And by problem employees I mean, "I caught them stealing/spitting in people's food on camera."
  
• The family business that can't separate family and business. Family members who are hired for their genealogy and not their ability, and immune to consequences for the same. I'd also add family where family dynamics aren't giving way to business dynamics (big brother doesn't accept little brother, the owner, as boss), and, "I hate being here with a passion but you are family so I feel obligated to work here."

It's not an all encompassing list.

*I bet a lot of people think, "It's waiting tables, it is straightforward." The thing is the systems of a particular work environment are different even if the basic job description is the same.

This is why I don't consider myself leadership material. I like working independently, with some reasonable instructions. My first career of teaching was largely independent, and my second career in Scouting was much the same after our office manager retired and my boss saw no reason to hire a new one if he could just check on our progress every now and then.

Sounds like your boss is managing you, checking on your progress every now and then is holding you accountable for the work you are doing. There are different styles of management, managing people doesn't mean you are micromanaging people, and it doesn't mean you can't allow them some autonomy, particularly if they are experienced employees.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Dravin

[talisyn]

My job works on the assumption that, after a certain period of training, we the operators, etc. know our jobs and it's the supervisors task to clear obstacles out of our way to french fry perfection. This works really well (our factory is getting mega capital projects cause we just rock) but some of our supervisors are very old-school about whip-cracking. Fortunately, they get rotated every 6 months :)

[skippy740]

First, I love Restaurant: Impossible... and I really like Hotel: Impossible as well on the travel channel too! There's a new "impossible" show called "Church: Impossible" out now. I guess it's the new trend in reality television.

The problems that I see is that the owners have tunnel-vision - they don't see what others around them are doing. They just stay in their "own little box" without poking their head out to see the rest of the world.

Most managers/owners don't know how to give encouragement while giving a critique. You see, if you didn't believe in that person to do the job... you wouldn't bother with it. You'd just let them go. So, a manager/owner should show that confidence in that person... while correcting the bad behavior.

It's an art of communication... and most people aren't clear in their communication skills either.

[dahlia]

I teach management. I teach it to people who are going to be librarians - management isn't usually on their minds when they apply to grad school, but there you are. You either grow into a management position or you stagnate in lower level jobs forever. Even if they are just managing the 'Friends of the Library,' they gotta learn to manage other people.

Speaking of this group, mostly females, I'd say there are two problems: 1) management is only now becoming a regular/required course. Many working now never took a management course. Then they get promoted and don't know how to manage. It is not enough to manage the processes of running an information organization, you have to manage people in it.

2) Females. Maybe it's the nasty lawyer in me, but every year I have to whip these women into shape (and a number of the men as well) who are afraid of standing up for themselves, afraid of asking for what they want, and afraid to tell people what to do or what they did wrong.

We have some fierce women in LIS, but we have some soft sisters who need to cowgirl up. It's something that can be learned, if you want to learn it.

All term I talk about how you treat people - especially how you treat them in uncomfortable situations. I think part of the reason managers are afraid to critique workers is a fear of lawsuits ("You looked at me wrong because I'm queer, now I'm going to own the company") or people coming back to the office with a sawed off shotgun. Seriously, these are valid concerns, and I understand managers treading more softly these days than they used to. Still, it doesn't make for a managed - a controlled - environment where people know what is expected and what the consequences are for not meeting those expectations.

[beefche]

Here's where I'm having problems with this issue. I've been in management. I've been with this company for 19 years and 3 of those years I was a supervisor. I'm no longer a supervisor, but I am still in a position where I have to give feedback to people--even my superiors. When I became a supervisor, I read a bunch of books on management. The information is out there and it's consistent. Focus on the behavior and how it is affecting the business.

So, if someone does something wrong, you don't say, "Bob, you messed up on your widget." Instead you say something like, "Bob, I was reviewing some work and noticed an error on a widget. You put label B on a widget that needed label A. As you know, it's important that we put the right labels on our products because our customers can become confused." Then you document it. If it happens again, you approach it the same way, but this time talk about why the error is happening and how to correct it. The third time, you begin to impose consequences. "Bob, we've talked about this issue a couple of times before. I even spent 4 hours with you one day to show you how to not do this error. You continue to make this error. At this time, you are on probation. If this error occurs again, further action will be taken up to and including termination."

That isn't being mean. That is telling someone that what they are doing is affecting their job. Yes, it is very difficult to fire someone. Especially when they bring on the tears (whether real or fake, tears are hard to deal with). So, I work with people before we get to that point. If they are willing and humble, they will do what it takes to learn. If not, then they aren't a fit for us anyway, and will be happier once they are gone.

One of the worst things (IMO) is when we get a group email "I've noticed there's been some errors on putting labels on widgets. Please make sure you are putting on the correct labels on widgets." Who is making the error? Me? I thought I was doing it right, now I'm not? If the error is being done by several people, then the email would make sense. But, if it is just one person, then go to that person.

I had that happen to me--I made the error, but the email went out to the whole team. So, now the whole team is wondering "Is it I?" Of course, it caused all of us to wonder and talk about it. I discovered it was me who made the error--the only one. I finally got fed up with the wondering and started telling everyone that I was the one who made the error. I also went to the supervisor and asked her that next time she sees one of my errors, to please bring it to me personally. She confirmed that I was the one who made the error, no one else, but she thought the information was "good for everyone." Bull. She just didn't want to confront me about it because she isn't confortable speaking to people one on one.

[Guest]

I sooo wanted to run this experiment: Are people who have well-mannered dogs good managers?

I believe that people like my husband who successfully raised 2 un-neutered male alph-type dobermans are stellar managers. I've believed this when he was still a runway model and he and his 2 dogs moved into my house when we got married. He got his first manager job a few years ago and he is doing a really good job at it. Of course, I have never found any statistical studies on this so I'm just blowing stuff out of thin air.

Anyway, beefche, if you haven't seen it yet, you should watch that 80's movie Gung Ho. It's an awesome movie about the different management styles between Asia and America and the good and bad of each one. It's very stereotyped, of course, coming from Hollywood and all... but it is hilarious and mostly hit the nail on the head. LOL.

[MarginOfError]

Here's where I'm having problems with this issue. I've been in management. I've been with this company for 19 years and 3 of those years I was a supervisor. I'm no longer a supervisor, but I am still in a position where I have to give feedback to people--even my superiors. When I became a supervisor, I read a bunch of books on management. The information is out there and it's consistent. Focus on the behavior and how it is affecting the business.

This is actually a really important aspect of leadership/management. You have to give your team a unified focus. Usually, that comes in the form of a vision statement.

But it isn't enough to have a vision for your team. You have to get your team to buy into it. That's the hard part. Once you've gotten your team to buy into the vision, it's really easy to give criticism and instruction because it's really easy to frame things in terms of accomplishing the vision.

I'm fortunate enough to work with a large department of close to 100 people who are all fairly unified in our vision and goals. We want to improve the quality of medical care in our institution and throughout the world. Doing that requires us to be scientifically rigorous and precise. So when we feel like a member of our team is failing on the science, we open the discussion. It's never about who is smarter or more accomplished. It's about getting the science right. It works pretty well.

When I worked in the food service industry (I was a cook at Pizza Hut), it was a lot harder to get everyone to buy into the vision of providing the best food and best service in town. Having young, inexperienced staff that were primarily working for the sake of paying the bills (not out of a passion for the work) made it hard to convince people to really put themselves into the work. I didn't really develop a good service attitude until after I took a break to work on a cruise ship with a world class chef. He taught me a lot about the service industry and was very firm in the instructions that if a customer made a request, we always said yes.

I took that attitude back to Pizza Hut with me. Anytime a server came back to ask me if we could do some special request, I would always tell them to just say 'yes' and that I would personally either a) fulfill the request, or b) explain to the customer why I couldn't (the only time I would decline a request is if we didn't have the supplies to do it--such as if they requested kangaroo steaks on their pizza). As I shared this instruction more and more, I noticed the attitude change a bit from some of the staff. But it was a modest adjustment, so I can appreciate the difficulty these restaurant managers have in motivating their staff to do something beyond the minimum expectation.

[Guest]

This is actually a really important aspect of leadership/management. You have to give your team a unified focus. Usually, that comes in the form of a vision statement.

But it isn't enough to have a vision for your team. You have to get your team to buy into it. That's the hard part. Once you've gotten your team to buy into the vision, it's really easy to give criticism and instruction because it's really easy to frame things in terms of accomplishing the vision.

I'm fortunate enough to work with a large department of close to 100 people who are all fairly unified in our vision and goals. We want to improve the quality of medical care in our institution and throughout the world. Doing that requires us to be scientifically rigorous and precise. So when we feel like a member of our team is failing on the science, we open the discussion. It's never about who is smarter or more accomplished. It's about getting the science right. It works pretty well.

When I worked in the food service industry (I was a cook at Pizza Hut), it was a lot harder to get everyone to buy into the vision of providing the best food and best service in town. Having young, inexperienced staff that were primarily working for the sake of paying the bills (not out of a passion for the work) made it hard to convince people to really put themselves into the work. I didn't really develop a good service attitude until after I took a break to work on a cruise ship with a world class chef. He taught me a lot about the service industry and was very firm in the instructions that if a customer made a request, we always said yes.

I took that attitude back to Pizza Hut with me. Anytime a server came back to ask me if we could do some special request, I would always tell them to just say 'yes' and that I would personally either a) fulfill the request, or b) explain to the customer why I couldn't (the only time I would decline a request is if we didn't have the supplies to do it--such as if they requested kangaroo steaks on their pizza). As I shared this instruction more and more, I noticed the attitude change a bit from some of the staff. But it was a modest adjustment, so I can appreciate the difficulty these restaurant managers have in motivating their staff to do something beyond the minimum expectation.

Well... according to some people here, you're just in it for the advertising and grant money...

[talisyn]

I am really struck by the difference in managerial attitude between what has been expressed and my company's manager style. I wonder if it's because most people are talking about offices and my work is primarily production? Or maybe because my company is Canadian, eh?

A few years ago the company decided to give the workers this wonderful program called 'Roadmap'. It's where the floor workers, while performing their job, would find inefficiencies that are safety and/or money hazards and present the information in pretty little PowerPoint presentations and colorful handouts to supervisors on a weekly basis, with headquarters expectations that the supervisors will fix the problems or report why they can't fix them. We also get quarterly bonuses based on quality, safety, and delivery. It's very successful (who doesn't like getting bonuses?) and a good way for rank-and-file to see how their mental and physical capital is invested and of worth.

Treat your people like grown adults, identify and solve problems with them, and give them money. It works for my company

[Guest]

I am really struck by the difference in managerial attitude between what has been expressed and my company's manager style. I wonder if it's because most people are talking about offices and my work is primarily production? Or maybe because my company is Canadian, eh?

A few years ago the company decided to give the workers this wonderful program called 'Roadmap'. It's where the floor workers, while performing their job, would find inefficiencies that are safety and/or money hazards and present the information in pretty little PowerPoint presentations and colorful handouts to supervisors on a weekly basis, with headquarters expectations that the supervisors will fix the problems or report why they can't fix them. We also get quarterly bonuses based on quality, safety, and delivery. It's very successful (who doesn't like getting bonuses?) and a good way for rank-and-file to see how their mental and physical capital is invested and of worth.

Treat your people like grown adults, identify and solve problems with them, and give them money. It works for my company

That's SOP for most companies, production or service wise. That's not what we're talking about here though. What we're talking about is the inter-personal relationship between you and your boss. You send out pretty little powerpoints, sure. The inter-personal relationship is when you give that presentation to your boss, and your boss thinks it's sub-standard, how he goes about getting you to correct it... especially if you think it's the best presentation ever. Make sense?

[talisyn]

It makes sense. I thought I implied that in my response, let me expound :)

The powerpoint presentations were key in my company. Most of the pre-computer employees (most of the floor workers, that is) had never before used technology in this manner. Microsoft office was a new, not very exciting, and sometimes very intimidating, language for them to learn. Standard procedure in olden days was the employees take complaints/concerns to supervisor, who would then decide whether or not to do anything, and often times upper management were clueless until they got an email from a VP or the president because the floor employee went outside the chain of command. With months of data presented to supervisors and their bosses in a format familiar to them it was easier for them to see our pov and in turn request capital from headquarters for improvements. We, the employees, understood that we were taking on more work for no extra pay.

(But there is the expectation that this had better translate into a more than 1.3% raise in pay next time the contract is up, because we have that data as well.)

My point in all this? The workers have been managed in such a way that we will invest time and effort into new, odd things. We will defer pay for a certain amount of time. We will be team players. This would not have happened in the old butt-chewing managerial days.

[Mahone]

I had that happen to me--I made the error, but the email went out to the whole team. So, now the whole team is wondering "Is it I?" Of course, it caused all of us to wonder and talk about it. I discovered it was me who made the error--the only one. I finally got fed up with the wondering and started telling everyone that I was the one who made the error. I also went to the supervisor and asked her that next time she sees one of my errors, to please bring it to me personally. She confirmed that I was the one who made the error, no one else, but she thought the information was "good for everyone." Bull. She just didn't want to confront me about it because she isn't confortable speaking to people one on one.

I've done exactly this before, not because I wasn't comfortable speaking to the relevant person, but because I genuinely believed it was important for everyone. Although I know exactly who made the error on this occasion, I believed that this was just sheer circumstance and any of them might have made the same mistake in the same position. It seemed unfair to single the one person out in this instance.