3 ms·
The problem with advice like this is that, as a result of following it, you become a phony. The "don't go back to being buddy buddy" stuff is just odd. It's man
by danilocampos 16y ago
The problem with advice like this is that, as a result of following it, you become a phony. The "don't go back to being buddy buddy" stuff is just odd. It's manipulative at worst and unnatural and uncomfortable at best.
My philosophy is this: If you're half competent at choosing your team and someone you lead isn't performing, it's probably your fault. So before you decide that "your employees have made a mistake," you should probably be clear on whether not you made a mistake first.
Are the expectations clear? I bet you they're not. Leading people means exhaustive communication, especially about details and success conditions. If you're not sharing this stuff, you're not providing useful leadership.
Have you communicated the stakes? If something is important, don't assume that everyone else knows that. What makes it important? Why should anyone else case?
Are you available to help? If you're not making time to check in and support as unexpected complexities of the task crop up, you're in for some nice surprises at the end.
When people fail to meet the needs and expectations of the task, are you direct about it or do you pretend everything is cool? Do you look for opportunities to teach about the failing, explain what was disappointing? Most importantly, do you point out how to do better next time?
When people do outstandingly well, do you recognize that?
The tl;dr of this: getting what you want from people is a combination of being proactive and communicating. Not micromanaging, not being a babysitter, not being a bully, not being a softie.
Be direct, don't expect anyone to read your mind, understand you're part of the process as a leader.
(All this collected from being led by extraordinary leaders, lazy ones, and outright terrible ones.)
- skowmunk 16y ago.... exhaustive communication, especially about details ..... and ....communicating. Not micromanaging, not ... I agree with some of your points, but aren't the 'details" and 'not micromanaging' statments conflicting in what you say?
- danilocampos 16y agoYou could definitely take it too far and enter that territory, yes. I'm saying the difference between "Build me a house by next week" and "Build me a house large enough for four people with a garage and laundry facilities. If we're missing those things, we won't be competitive." Especially outside of technical realms, it's nauseatingly common for requests to go under-specified, leading to a bunch of wasted work once everyone circles back and realizes "Oh, forgot to tell you about..."
- skowmunk 16y agoThat is true, quite often time and work gets wasted because the right specs are not decided or not communicated or the right questions not asked up front . As a supplier of data analysis and reports to cost cutting/six sigma projects, I have seen it too many times where some project leaders don't go by the 'data first' principle. They pre-decide the direction of the project with no or minimal data and then go about collecting selective data supporting their direction.
- Ras_ 16y ago>>They pre-decide the direction of the project with no or minimal data and then go about collecting selective data supporting their direction. I associate this behavior with (impulse) buying. Some like to think they are buyers who base their decisions on rationale rather than feelings, when in reality they buy based on emotion only to rationalize it later.
- drac 16y agoI agree completely with everything that you say. Yet the problem now is if you spend all that time communicating, you still can't know for sure if everyone was listening or tuning you out half the time. More so if other people around you undercommunicate instead of overcommunicate. Perhaps it is not the norm but I've seen this response to a few leaders who spend a lot of time communicating. Wonder if it is worth it, always
- msuster 16y agoAll you do is choose different words than I do but I suspect we're not a million miles off. You talk of "not being a bully, not being a softie." That is sufficiently vague as to be acceptable and populist. But it is a hard line to walk and it is at the heart of what I was getting at with heat vs. light. I suspect if we sat and talked about it you'd find that we aren't that far off each other in management style. I am neither phony or manipulative. Although I can see why nuance is lost when I write quick blog posts and choose words that don't resonate with you.