Tag: office

Posted on by

Stop Punishing Your Best Performers! Build a Culture of Employee Development

I have worked for a company where I was assigned to a manager who was treated like this by his manager and by the CEO, and I could tell very early on that they wanted/expected me to be just like him in every way–including allowing them to punish me for competence.

It would be nice if supervisors, managers, directors and so on would read this article and use it to seriously make changes. But this is what goes on in workplaces, and I’m pretty sure that’s never going to change. My situation is more like the second setting described in the article, but I absolutely see the day I resign for good going exactly as described in the first situation impotenciastop.pt. It’s amazing how employers regularly punish the best employees and then act shocked when they leave.

Gems:

Because this individual is so valuable to the manager, the manager rewards the individual by giving him or her more work, which in essence precludes the employee from earning or seeking other opportunities for promotion. The manager “claims” that the individual has a bright future with the company, but that he or she just needs to be “a bit more patient.”

 

When the employee does offer his or her resignation, the manager is shocked and responds, “I had no idea you were this unhappy. Why didn’t you say something?” … The superior employee leaves because he or she no longer trusts the manager. The real victim is the company…

 

In its early stages, weak managers punish better performers, who already have a full plate of work to do, with additional work that weaker employees either cannot or will not do. The weak manager usually approaches the better employee with requests such as, “I know you’re busy, but can you take care of this. Blank just doesn’t know how to do it?” Or, “Can you handle this? We are pressed for time, and I know I can depend on you to get this done.”

 

The first step is prevention. Have a clear picture of the type of person you want to hire. This profile should include not only the skills and experience needed for the incumbent to succeed but a description of the type of person who will fit into the culture of your company.

 

Make sure that all of the members of your team know what they are supposed to do, how to do it…the “why” of what they do–i.e. how it fits in to your company’s operation–and how the performance of their duties impacts the jobs of their teammates.

 

Stop Punishing Your Best Performers! Build a Culture of Employee Development

Posted on by

The Upside of Eating Lunch Alone

Another Wall Street Journal article. This one tells the absolute truth about the downsides of forced socializing at lunchtime at work https://osterreichische-apotheke.com/k../. Definitely have experienced the full range of these downsides.

Gems:

[John Trougaks and his colleagues] found that either socializing or working over lunch left employees more exhausted than simply relaxing with a true lunch break. But what really determined how drained someone was at the end of the day was how much choice they had over what they did during lunch. A mandatory company-sponsored lunch was more tiring than choosing to work through lunch. Having control over what you do with that time turns out to be as important as what you do.

 

Just about the time the afternoon post-lunch lull begins to set in, the social activities that were energizing earlier in the day start to make us feel depleted. This is true for both introverts and extroverts.

 

Fear of being seen as different or not being understood may lead minorities to attend lunches and parties out of a sense of obligation. This makes it even more difficult to connect. Anytime someone attends a lunch because they feel like they have to, their chances of creating meaningful connections are about as good as if they never left their desk.

 

The Upside of Eating Lunch Alone

Posted on by

Bosses, Get Out of Your Employees’ Way

It has been a while, but I have still been reading and collecting articles to post! It looks like my next couple will be from The Wall Street Journal, perhaps, which tends to require a subscription to read. But there are some great quotes and takeaways in this article. Really love it–every boss, manager, supervisor, etc, should read it. Because not everyone can read the article, and because the article is long, I will include a few more quotes/gems than usual. My favorite quote/gem is in red below!

Some of the gems:

First, bosses need to understand the damage they do by interfering when they ought to stand aside. Second, bosses need to know when getting out of the way is best and how to do it. And third, employees need to know how they can reduce the damage when a stubborn or clueless boss continues to engage in misguided meddling.

 

comprar casodex…even leaders who use the much-ballyhooed practice of management by walking around—known as MBWA—who devote big chunks of time to observing front-line work and asking employees to identify problems and solutions, may do more harm than good.

 

…when leaders used MBWA for complex and vexing problems (such as excessive lead times for lab test results), employees reported that chats and meetings with bosses interfered with their productive work and rarely solved the problems. On the contrary: These futile discussions had enduring negative repercussions because they drew attention to their leaders’ failings.

 

One boss in a nonprofit organization told me that she hones such self-awareness by seeking out and developing rapport with local critics and complainers—people who are quick to criticize her and spread bad news about her missteps…[T]hese grumpy employees provide her with more useful information. That includes tips about meetings she calls that ought to be eliminated or shortened, and about times when she is seen as a micromanager rather than helpful coach. She believes that these naysayers and critics make her a better boss.

 

 …too often bosses won’t dial down their scrutiny, advice and demands, even when it undermines progress and drives people crazy. It isn’t that they are being malicious, as was evident in Prof. Pfeffer’s experiments. Rather, they think interfering is what being a good boss is all about.

 

They elected to resist, ignore and undermine their bosses’ authority because they wanted to do what was best for their organizations, colleagues, and customers.

 

Bosses, Get Out of Your Employees’ Way

Posted on by

The Best Employees Are Not the Agreeable Ones, According to Adam Grant

Absolutely love this article–very short, but great point. Would love to read more about this or see a video of the speech by Grant.

Gems:

The agreeable giver may seem like the ideal employee, but Grant says their sunny disposition can make them averse to conflict and too eager to agree https://impotenzastop.it/. Disagreeable givers, on the other hand, can be a pain in the ass, but valuable to an organization, Grant says.

They’re more likely to fight for what they believe in, challenge the status quo, and push the organization to make painful but necessary changes, he says.

 

…for organizations eager to avoid complacency and determined to improve, [disagreeable givers] also can be invaluable.

 

The Best Employees Are Not the Agreeable Ones, According to Adam Grant

Posted on by

Cold Hard Truths About The Workplace I Learned The Hard Way

I don’t 100% agree with this article, but I mostly do (love the third one). The last “truth” generally applies to me but it has only been recognized by an employer while I was still their employee once, and even that recognition can’t keep me in “the workplace”. But it’s the only thing that makes working for other people even semi-tolerable.

Some gems:

Just don’t look at your co-workers as friends because you expect too much from them. It’s a whole different dynamic. At work, people are there to earn a living.

 

So you decide to speak your mind. You listen to them and try to be honest with your feedback. What happens? Suddenly, you become an enemy. A defector https://ed-hrvatski.com/kamagra/. Someone who doesn’t fit in.

 

Every firm, business unit, and team has a John or Johanna. Someone who’s accountable for the majority of the results. Someone the company relies on. Naturally, Johanna is favored and gets special treatment. And what happens? Others get jealous and say it’s not fair.

Sure, most businesses are very obvious about the way they reward their Johns. They could be more subtle. But when they do that, they risk that John or Johanna leaves their company. And when that happens, the company loses. You can cry or complain about it. But you’re not helping your company or yourself.

 

Cold Hard Truths About The Workplace I Learned The Hard Way

 

Posted on by

Four day work weeks sound too good to be true. These companies make it work

It would be nice if employers could figure out a four-day work week that doesn’t involve basically adding that 5th work day on to the other four in terms of hours and doesn’t involve making less money because you work fewer hours. Four work days (8 hours a day), but the same pay as five. I know it doesn’t feel like it adds up to those who are responsible for paying employees. But if the four-day work week means getting paid only for 32 hours or working 10-12 hours four days a week, you can keep that four-day work week…

Gems:

“We continued to extend it each quarter and a year later when we reflected, we realized we had gotten more done that year than we had in a long time,” said Natalie Nagele, [Wildbit’s] CEO and cofounder.

Getting an extra day provides employees time to regenerate, she added.

“By Monday morning, everyone is kind of running to work. You can process challenges and think through things you were blocked by and then by Monday you feel more empowered to get work done.”

(Ummmmm…pretty sure the only people who are “running to work” on Monday mornings are people who are unhappy in their personal lives and/or with the people with whom they live, and workaholics. Four-day work weeks have nothing to do with it.)

“Burnout is real,” said Lindsay Grenawalt, chief people officer at Cockroach Labs. “When you hire brilliant people, they will give everything to your business. It’s on the business to say, ‘hold on, we don’t want you to burn out. We want you here for the long haul and to do your best work.’ You can’t do that if you are exhausted and angry.”

 

…perpetual three-day weekends didn’t work for the sales department.

“They have to be available to hit the goals,” said Grenawalt. The sales department does not get Fridays off, but is offered commission and bonuses that are not offered to other departments.

Posted on by

Managers, You’re More Intimidating Than You Think

Such a great, necessary article. Managers, supervisors, directors and CEOs can come off as delusional people because many think they have and/or foster an open, honest environment and that they’re approachable or that any employee with something on his/her mind will say it/talk about it–simple. The truth is that there are clear power dynamics that generally prevent these things from being the case…no matter what they say or what they ask you. In most cases, if I speak my mind with someone in a leadership position at work, that means that I can accept possibly losing my job (and probably already have one foot out the door anyway). I’m talking about problem situations at work and those times when your ideas clash with what is already being done and/or what others want to hear https://impotenzastop.it/.

I also must point out that 95% of the time when I’ve spoken to someone in a leadership position at work about anything, I’ve experienced some form of dismissal–even if the leader did ultimately try to do something positive/helpful as a result of the conversation.

I could quote several gems from this article, but let’s go with the following:

If employees are afraid to speak up, engagement suffers, learning moments go unrecognized, misconduct goes unquestioned, and innovations go unrealized.

 

…you can be friendly and well-meaning, but certain labels you carry with you can override those characteristics and define that relationship for others.

Those labels might be job titles, such as “boss,” “head of HR,” or “CEO.”…Even as organizations pride themselves on being nonhierarchical, these social strata persist.

 

Reacting negatively to being challenged — with overt anger, dismissal, or disinterest — means that you’ll be challenged less often in the future.

 

Managers, You’re More Intimidating Than You Think

Posted on by

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Been meaning to post this one for a while now.

Frankly, I am generally disgusted by the whole idea of “culture” in hiring and workplaces. I think [in the US] we have gotten too far away from understanding/acknowledging why people really work and why people really come to work and what most people really want from their jobs at the end of the day (especially since–let’s face it–the idea of “culture” in the workplace is really more about and for the benefit of the employer). And it has become a huge no-no to point out these ridiculously obvious realities and accept them for what they are without being viewed negatively or even having your job–or ability to get a job–threatened.

Still, when it all is said and done, you can do whatever you want and have whatever “culture” and “relationships” you want–no one is showing up to work and no one is doing anything for your company if you stop paying them. So, requiring a “cultural fit” or whatever and throwing that on top of the already-lengthy list of job requirements and hiring requirements just makes everything that much harder–for the person hiring and the leaders in a company and the employees and job candidates–when it still is, always was and always will be really and truly about a paycheck.

So, I would love for companies and employers to stop kidding themselves.

All of that said…if you’re going to talk about basing a work culture on mostly professionalism, innovation and/or diversity (I guess if we’re going to come up with acronyms, then I’d call my “cultural” values PID and wouldn’t want to just pay lip service to them like most companies do)…then I can get on board. They’re pretty easy values to which to fit candidates, actually, in my opinion, and they aren’t as taxing, problematic, alienating and/or unrealistic as the values the average company with a cultural ideal has. Which is probably why I struggle to tolerate any other types of cultural workplace beliefs.

This post discusses the benefits of, and the connection between, diversity and innovation in organizations.

Some gems:

…most hiring processes focus on “cultural fit” and lead to the opposite of diversity. Why? Because when we hire based on how well someone will fit in today, we tend to choose people similar to those already around us.

 

I try to choose candidates who could make a positive contribution to the future of our culture, even if they don’t feel like today’s mainstream employee. I don’t optimize for fit with our existing culture, because over time that will lead to uniformity and irrelevancy. Instead, I try to envision a future where this person’s unique point of view has shifted how we work and what we value.

 

…even more importantly, hiring for cultural contribution forces managers to think critically about their existing culture: What’s lacking? Where do we want to go? Acknowledging that our culture needn’t be static helps us have serious conversations about what we want and how the world works. Doing so helps us develop a confident awareness of what makes our culture thrive.

 

I also love this comment from Koney Hoi, who has an impressive background as a leader:

Cultural fit is just a convenient excuse to reject someone. Michael Jordan did not get along with his teammates but they won 6 championships together. Why? Agree to disagree and march together towards a common goal.

 

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Posted on by

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Common sense strikes again. I concur with all of this, except one part–the word “feedback.”

I believe employers should have monthly “check-ins” with employees, if not check-ins that occur more often. And words such as “feedback” and “reviews” make it seem one-sided when it shouldn’t be. The “feedback” should go both ways. Really, it should be a discussion or a conversation, so that you, as an employer, can gather a lot of valuable information from an employee about problems that need to be addressed, needs that need to be met, etc.

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Gems:

>50% reacted to an annual performance review by looking for a new job.

 

64% of employees that quit their jobs say they did it because they didn’t feel recognized for their job. – U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Companies that set quarterly performance goals to generate 31% greater returns than those that review goals annually, and those that do it monthly get even better results.

 

I do have to note one thing about “performance goals”–I have worked at a company where quarterly performance goals was a thing, and I perceived them as somewhat arbitrary and meaningless…at least at this company. If you’re going to require performance goals–which I think is kind of ridiculous–make sure they’re tied to necessities. It shouldn’t be coming up with 3 or 4 goals just to have 3 or 4 goals, especially if you’re tying these pointless goals to bonuses and/or raises. This leads to wasted time for employees on pointless goals when there are more important–even critical–places to focus attention, time and effort. If there’s one big thing that it’d be truly helpful or necessary to have completed within 3 or so months, then that one thing should be the performance goal–not 1 semi-important thing (i.e https://osterreichische-apotheke.com/k../. important but not critical in the next 3 months), 1-2 impossible as fuck things and 1-2 totally unimportant things, as was the case where I worked.

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Posted on by

Openness and Connection Part 1

Today, I’m sharing something different–a YouTube post. I actually found it after “googling” the authors (Tim and Joy Downs) of a book of which I’ve read a few sections. The book is geared more towards romantic relationships/marriages, but some of the information in this book would vastly help a ton of workplaces in terms of better understanding, accepting and communicating with others.

There are religious references, particularly in the beginning of the video, so I’m setting the video to start around the 4:30 mark–that’s where the real value of the video starts anyway comprar casodex.

Today, I’m sharing part 1.

I highly recommend Tim and Joy Downs’s book just for the section about Openness alone (but I’m also finding the section about Connection to be interesting and useful):

One Of Us Must Be Crazy…and I’m Pretty Sure It’s You: Making Sense of the Differences that Divide Us