4 ms·
"in a healthy org" There-in lies the problem. The statement you quoted was meant (although not in any way obvious) to be a resigned statement of acceptance tha
by Intermernet 13y ago
"in a healthy org" There-in lies the problem.
The statement you quoted was meant (although not in any way obvious) to be a resigned statement of acceptance that, given a certain size, there will be those in any company that demand special attention, and sometimes it's a battle you can't win. Although it does throw everyone else's schedules out of whack.
- sokoloff 13y agoI hear ya (and understood your point). I agree that it's OK in moderation or when very specifically asked for (whether it's obviously justified or not). I was just trying to point out some of the downsides that I've shared with my teams who are sometimes too eager-beaver to work in pecking order rather than priority order. People generally want to do the right thing; sometimes they need help framing what that right thing is.
- Intermernet 13y agoI agree completely, and I'm happy to see examples of orgs where the execs / directors respect and realise that the teams that they hire (IT, HR, Sales, Pick / Pack, whatever) will do the best job they can given the opportunity. The feeling of trust in employees is tangible, and therefore mutual and reciprocal. If you're the head of a company, or indeed anyone leading a team, please take note of the above point. Trust your people to do their job (you can still measure their performance) and they will trust you to do your's.