11. Make decisions that affect workers for which they have valuable input, but don't seek that input.
12. Make decisions that affect workers for which they have valuable input, seek that input, but ignore it and do what you want anyway.
13. Say one thing and do another. (Mission Statement = A, What We Really Do = B)
14. Have no idea what it actually takes to get things done.
15. Have no idea who people are and what they do.
16. Believe that management is "over" workers. (Fail to understand that until a worker actually builds something, management has nothing to manage and ownership has nothing to count.)
17. Treat workers as unequals.
18. Act like children.
19. Pay late.
20. Drive the business into the toilet.
21. Make work so difficult or pointless that you drive your best workers to Hacker News.
"13. Say one thing and do another. (Mission Statement = A, What We Really Do = B)"
This, a thousand times over.
Mission statements are uniquely infuriating when their values are in blatant contradiction to how the business is being operated. I'd rather a company not have a mission statement at all than have a hypocritically practiced one.
A hypocritical mission statement turns into a cruel joke, and it serves only to reinforce employees' disenchantment with the firm -- especially when it's being touted in the press, or waved in employees' faces.
Please keep in mind that you are judging an entire spectrum of people based on your experience in one high school among many thousands of high schools, across thousands of counties, and across fifty states.
That's like saying I met someone from a foreign country once, didn't like him, and therefore I know all people from that country are jerks.
I think I do understand your point, but I think that my statement has more emotional content for you than it does for me.
I've spent significant amounts of time in a few different cultures and through that I have developed deep appreciation for the various dimensions in which cultures differ and, like the famous story of the fish in the water, how it's inherently impossible to realise what is cultural and what is not until you enter a culture which exists on different point in these dimensions.
If you're familiar with Hofstede's work [1] he already provides us with five cultural dimensions he found most salient and useful in describing cultural differences.
I merely posited that, based on my experience and compared to Dutch culture, the US I saw was far on the far end of a dimension I would call "distance between the projected identity and real-world behaviour." This manifested it in all sorts of ways, from abstinence only education and large amounts of teen pregnancy, to being harsh on drug use but doing it much more than I was used to, to the more well known examples of exaggeration on resumes being the norm.
It is also not surprising that this is the dimension that was most salient to my mind, since Dutch culture is famous for being extremely parsimonious and straight-forward so the cultural distance on this dimensions is probably very large.
P.S. Hofstede is actually a Dutchman, so interestingly enough this perspective itself could very well be a Dutch cultural trait, perhaps caused by us being among the earliest cultures who conducted world-wide trade.
Re: #16, my experience with and in management positions is that we no longer think of managers as people who specialize in management and whose function is to help a pool of natural talent stay coordinated, focused, challenged and rewarded. We instead think of them as people who do 40+ hours a week of their own specialized, non-management work but who also have to do performance reviews. I try to take a mentor/servant/counselor approach with my team, but it's difficult to do and my own experience suggests that it's a fairly uncommon mentality.
It's nice to know where you are with people. If we're not really equals, please don't treat me as if we are. If the final decision is yours, and you only allow a certain measure of disagreement, please make that clear.
I'll be more likely to give feedback and ideas if I know where the lines are, and don't have to worry about offending someone who's half my friends and half my boss by stepping over something I've not been adequately warned about. ^_^
22. Don't listen when your workers show you a better way.
23. Continue to use one technology "because we've always done it that way"
24. Waste your workers time with bureaucracy.
12. is a tough one, and is the reason that businesses often choose 11.
The danger of soliciting input is that people often couple too much of their ego with their suggestions. You can't possibly go with every suggestion or incorporate all input (because let's face it - most of it is usually poorly thought out), so when you give everyone their say and then have to go a different direction from much of it, people get angry and resentful.
I worked with one chap who literally hung onto his discarded idea about a bit (seriously, a bit field in a database) for years, with it reappearing with a bitter sense of pride with every new database discussion.
I think if the team decides that an idea is not currently worth pursuing, rejecting it and explaining why to an employee is not the same as ignoring it. If the employee then continues trying that idea, they're clearly not following directions and that can be dealt with.
Exactly. There is a huge difference in the following two statements:
1. "I hear you about X but we are doing Y anyway."
2. "I hear you about X and understand you viewpoint, however we need to go with Y because..."
I'm okay with #2. #1 will drive me away. And it should. It's disrespectful and basically tells the other person that you have no regard for their opinion and that you only ask to satisfy a rule or expectation. If you are aren't going to have a discussion about why Y is the solution and were going to do it regardless of what anyone else said, then why bother even asking?
This seems so obvious and straightforward, but it bears repeating:
If you value someone as an employee, show them.
Whether this is through salary increases, promotions, or even just pulling someone aside for five minutes and saying "Hey, you're doing a great job." ....show them. Especially on younger employees, its amazing how powerful a moment of unsolicited praise from a manager or senior level employee can be.
Obviously a bigger salary and promotions help as well, but companies often act surprised when someone they considered their "best employee" walks out, but how would this so called "best employee" even know they were highly valued in the first place when they cant get a raise that keeps up with inflation, or their manager can't even take five minutes every now and then to congratulate him/her on a job well done?
I never understood this advice. Not to sound arrogant, but I know I'm good. What I need from you is enough financial compensation so that my skillset/experience matches up with a competitive salary or I'm going to go elsewhere for that salary. I'm not a child. I don't need reassurance and tricks like "hey lets have casual Thursdays and a pingpong table" are NOT substitutes for the money I deserve.
Your position is a symptom of something else being wrong: You do not want to impress your management. This means that they do not inspire you, which is, frankly, a bad sign.
Top performing teams have great leaders. Great leaders inspire. Inspired workers value the praise.
I'm my own boss nowadays, but back when I was working for someone else, the teams I enjoyed the most had great leaders. Looking back, whenever I ended up being led by someone uninspired I jumped ship within months.
It's not about the money, it's about the respect. If you are doing a good job and make the company money you deserve a cut, not a pat on the shoulder. When the company is paying you your salary they are putting value on your work.
Leadership and inspiration are nothing without respect.
Money is not a great incentive lever, somewhat contrary to popular opinion. It has two unexpected characteristics:
1) It becomes expected by the employee. A raise has an effect the moment it is awarded. A couple of months later, the productivity effect wanes and the new salary is part of the steady state.
2) For most people, beyond an hygienic level, it's not really what they want. Of course nobody will tell you they wouldn't like a raise, but in practice they prefer a better work environment: flexible schedules, remote working, simple hierarchies, a trove of other factors that make working fun or at least enjoyable.
The popular belief is that money is not a great incentive lever, not the other way around. And like I said, it's not about the money, this is true. It's the respect - i.e. being paid fairly, in proportion of the contributions. If that condition was met, working remotely, at night or not at all doesn't matter. Optimizing flexible schedules, remote working, number of bosses is treating the symptoms, not the root of the disease. Respect is the name of the game. It's the name of almost any game :)
It depends on the person, and that's what makes management (and life!) tricky. For one employee, a nice raise is all that really counts. For another, they'll certainly welcome a nice raise, but really public praise is going to be very meaningful. For a third, that public recognition might be mortifying, but a well-written 'thank you' letter will go far. Et cetera, et cetera. You can't say, "It's not about X, it's about..." without overgeneralizing.
Completely agreed. Praise from the company is basically worthless to me; I don't need to be told that I'm good, if I'm doing well I'll know it. If you truly value my services then the only meaningful way to show that is through increased salary. Anything less is simply an attempt at manipulation.
Recognition in front of peers is good for other reasons, but its not a replacement for financial reward.
>I don't need to be told that I'm good, if I'm doing well I'll know it.
This might sound strange to you, but some subset of the population won't know it. Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger_effect[1]? Actual competence may weaken self-confidence and the unskilled might have illusory superiority.
There are also many cultural and social environments where an individual person comes from which gives them a negative self image no matter how well they are performing. It might not even occur to them they are doing a good job. Victims of abuse, for example.
Taking a second or two to say "good job" gives the person actual feedback. I'm not saying you should make a show, but job feedback is important.
My point didn't quite come off how I intended. I do agree that a "good job" here and there are essential. Praise for a job well done should be an integral part of being a competent manager or tech lead. But this can't be seen as a replacement for communicating worth to the employee by financial rewards. When the company itself tries to set up some process for praising good work as an alternative for financial rewards, that's where it becomes manipulation.
There are a lot of people who, even if they are highly technically competent, are not as comfortable taking independent action outside of what they've been directly told to do. Or worse, don't consider it to be part of their job at all.
If you want to promote any kind of sense of ownership or pride, find something they did that you didn't ask them to do and tell them that you think it's awesome. (Assuming you actually think it's awesome.) That's it.
I'm completely against patronizing, but to not signal to your employees that you value their judgement, independence and skill is... just foolish.
You certainly can't use praise as an excuse for not paying well. But it's cool to have a quick one-off "hey, great job hunting down that bug" from somebody.
Is positive feedback (other than possibly yearly appraisals) not useful?
I don't think the point is to replace compensation with pats-on-the-back, but rather, get in the habit of personally recognizing the positives. Too often it's only the negatives that are recognized, and though most of it is probably on the technical side of things ("hey, we found a bug you wrote that crashed prod"), there's still very little in the way of positive encouragement or reinforcement coming from a human.
Of course, some will respond better to it than others, but I think it's a worthy practice. Too often, especially in stressful atmospheres, only the negatives are spotlighted, and this can hurt morale over time.
It's not about getting a pat on the back, that kind of praise is meaningless and awkward. What is good to hear is that you're still providing value to the company and that what you're working on aligns with their goals. Knowing that can be the difference between getting promoted or getting laid off.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the praise (in fact I would love if employers did this more), but when there is discontinuity between the verbal praise and the financial compensation - then you have a problem.
I used to think like you. But it is not that simple. Of course, financial compensation is the best way to reward someone for being good. But you are missing the point made by GP. The idea that people acknowledge your value to a team is important. It encourages you to do a good job and be even better.
I get paid a lot more as a consultant right now that I made as a fulltime employee but there is something missing in my current gig. It is the appreciation (not patronizing) that me being there makes a difference.
The lack of appreciation between people is probably a sympton of a deeper problem. Perhaps the environment is toxically competitive and forces people to play down other people's contributions. Maybe there's a lack of leadership which means that the different parts of the team aren't working together positively or maybe the people there just aren't very good. It's not about a pat on the back either, people that respect the people around them don't need to engage in empty gestures of gratitude, it comes through very naturally.
>I never understood this advice. Not to sound arrogant, but I know I'm good.
How many people have been led out the door protesting, "How can you fire me? Don't you know how much work I do around here?" Those people didn't have anyone in management saying, "Hey, you're doing a great job."
It's not so much to let you know that you're good, but more to let you know that you're recognised as being good. Feeling unappreciated can and often does destroy morale and motivation.
I think managers need to know what motivates each employee on his/her team. Pay raise may be incentive enough for one person, but (for example) working from home may motivate another person. I've been in the field 20+ years and make a comfortable salary: I can buy what I care to buy. Now I want to work in my shorts at my dining room table with 4 windows streaming sunlight in, my own freshly brewed coffee just footsteps away. Another person on my team I know would prefer salary or frequent compliments. It's personal.
You have a good point, but keep in mind that everyone has biases towards different forms of communication. Some value written commendations, money, or non-monetary gifts. A manager/team lead must straddle both communicating effectively with the person while communicating in a way that is uniform and predictable to the team. Give me a "great job" in front of everyone, so everyone knows what is going on, but understand that I don't believe a word you say until I see the bump in pay.
We used to get praise at my place every now and then for a job well done which kept the spirits up and the motivation high. Now that's stopped it is all about the pay. I ask for more money every 6 months or so (never had an unsolicited pay increase), if I get it I'll stick around otherwise I'm off to check the who's hiring posts.
So far I'm still here, but the last raise was a bit naff so the CV's getting polished up. Life's too short to be working a job you don't like anymore.
Another very common one is chipping away at any and all costs until it's ridiculous. This is usually because cutting costs is an easy way for management to make their numbers if revenue is flat. At first it really is cutting the fat, but eventually you run out of fat and start making life difficult for employees.
It's especially bad when the size of the cuts is meaningless compared to the cost of a given employee. Making a $100k+ employee work with a 3-year-old $1000 laptop for an extra year shouldn't make any sense in a proper company, but it's incredibly common.
IT here. We have the hardware debate with the business guys relentlessly. Understand that the business guys just see it like this: If <replacement parts> + <Tech time> is less than the cost of a new machine, then repair the old one. Additionally 'why throw out something that works?' These two thought processes lead to some harmful decisions regarding hardware. I've seen 5-7 year old machines being used by people who bring in millions.
Sounds like you tried to confront them with the argument that "investing another 1000$ in this guy's machine will change your bottom line in the millions". What did they say in response?
I've tried various angles, some more successful than others. The 'increased productivity' pitch fails universally. I never even mention that anymore. On average it has a negative impact. Managers are too jaded to that pitch. Their 'I'm being sold something' antenna goes up. It's not that they have some cogent counter argument, it's just that the discussion stops.
If you want to make the hardware situation better. I recommend these two approaches.
1. Loss aversion. Detail what an unplanned outage costs. Lost work, man hours, even lost business if it's bad enough timing. Business guys have a respect for the missing nail that lost the war.
2. Cheapness. Buying a $1000 laptop every two years is better than a $2000 laptop every four. Better average hardware and less paying guys like me to fix broken machines. Business guys are more likely to write small checks. Paradoxically you are spending the same amount of money, but you can sell it to them like you are spending less.
Above all be respectful. They aren't idiots, they may have issues to worry about that you aren't aware of.
'n') Require Director-level approval to spend about £20 on 2 USB powered hubs AND have the director visit to inspect the two laptops that need the hubs just to make sure you're not being extravagant.
My #1 - Treat your employees not as assets but as negative impacts to your bottom line. You'd do it better yourself if you had the time, but instead you had to hire me.
I have Stockholm Syndrome. My biggest problem is that I'm now being overworked so much (intentionally) that I collapse from exhaustion when I go home and don't have the energy to spend looking for a new job.
Not everyone has the luxury to tolerate that risk. I considered doing that myself, but considering how long it took me to find a job while employed I would have been looking at multiple months of unemployment before landing something, which would have caused its own stresses, pressures, and exhaustion.
My #1:
Act as if you only have to do what is legally required. Bonus points if you use this as an excuse to play hardball and avoid keeping promises.
I've had two employers change their employee benefits packages/bonus structures sharply negatively within <1 year of being hired. In both cases I went up the chain and asked what other compensation I could expect. I was very reasonable and offered them several alternatives. I'm empathetic to a tough situation, and am willing to be flexible.
In both cases it was like talking to a tape recording. 'benefits are not guaranteed, and legally we are within our rights to change at any time' and 'sorry it's policy hands are tied'. Yes I understand that you can do that, but you've effectively rescinded what we negotiated when I recently agreed to work here.
The most frustrating part of the whole thing is how quickly things change once a two week notice is given. As if the retention offer does anything but underscore their dishonesty.
> Keep decision-making securely ensconced in the airless bunker of the executive wing. Avoid empowering mid-tier employees lest they suddenly become entrepreneurial and unpredictable.
Just my opinion, but I think (8) is the most insightful of these and perhaps the least obvious (though they are all obvious to an extent). (8) is also the hardest to do right. You don't want to drag a developer to five executive meetings a day so that he doesn't have time to do development; that could in itself drive him/her away. But you also don't want any of your developers to feel like they don't know what's going on with the business at a higher level, and if they have an insight there should be an easy and comfortable avenue for them to discuss it.
There is a problem with the suggestion in #6 and it applies to management. Some companies believe they need to do this for management, and since the managers know they will be moving, they optimize for short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.
A favorite tactic of managers is to fire Q&A and support staff. This is a short term win on the bottom line, but will kill things later. It makes them look good as they get to say they "optimized the workflow". Another excellent one is to put a freeze on equipment buying and let it rot.
If you become a big wig and are in a company inclined to move people around for experience, please, please, please add something to your evaluations that look at the position they left 1 year ago and judge them on the sustainability. If they don't help enforce a sustainable process, then they will be fired as they are just a selfish, game-player.
The article is a little sparse, but great points. I put a Haiku Deck on something similar but from a Good Manager vs Bad Manager perspective in terms of what bad managers are doing that affects their ability to retain talent.
I also want to find some research a professor once mentioned, about the traits that employees associated with good managers/bosses (I recall that almost all were personal, almost none technical).
For the research you could try looking up the works of Patrick Lioncini, he also has a great book on the subject called "five dysfunctions of a team".
In my experience, poor talent management and execution always comes down to egos, so yes, you would be right in thinking that it's almost always a personal level issue. When egos are involved, that's what you'll get.
#0 Don't pay anything close to what the employee is worth. Underpay, furlough, slow-pay your best employees to really build that desire to see if the grass is greener elsewhere.
Pretty sure the last place I worked did all ten of those. And it did lose anyone who was any good. The joke was that the only way to get respect was to leave and get re-hired.
The defense industry has three paths to real advancement:
1) Become the rock star/golden child for a higher-up who pulls you along as they rise
2) Move from company to company every so often to get positions with higher salary grade and responsibility
3) Become the oracle of technical knowledge in some narrow but crucial specialty
12. Make decisions that affect workers for which they have valuable input, seek that input, but ignore it and do what you want anyway.
13. Say one thing and do another. (Mission Statement = A, What We Really Do = B)
14. Have no idea what it actually takes to get things done.
15. Have no idea who people are and what they do.
16. Believe that management is "over" workers. (Fail to understand that until a worker actually builds something, management has nothing to manage and ownership has nothing to count.)
17. Treat workers as unequals.
18. Act like children.
19. Pay late.
20. Drive the business into the toilet.
21. Make work so difficult or pointless that you drive your best workers to Hacker News.