Despite the catchy subtitle "What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently", there was barely anything new or surprising in this book for me. Maybe I've just read way too many management books. But it may be a good book for starting.
The basic insight of the book is that people don't change. So don't waste time and try to make them. Respect people as they are and put the right ones on the right job instead. Train them in things that you can train, knowledge and technical skills, but do not try and change who they are.
This is another book emphasizing the soft-skill, human-relation side of management. To its merit, it is based on a systematic survey of different firms that have many comparable units like shops or factories. One shop may sell a lot, while another does badly. Why? To find out, they asked hundreds of questions, and then shortlisted the ones that when strongly correlated with success (which by the way does not imply causality, but never mind):
1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?
2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my job right?
3. Do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
(There were 6 more that made the cut, but those were the most important ones.)
They found that the strongest influence on how you experience your company is your direct supervisor. Like Jack Welch, the books puts a large part of success on getting and growing the right people. Customer orientation, strategy, technical management, comes second, because if you do not have the right people, even the best plans can not be executed.
Selecting the right person for the job
They call personal preferences that can not be trained "talents": love for numbers, attention to detail, being competitive, being sociable, liking to be on stage or hating so, thinking quantitatively, being compassionate and so on. So if you hire a sales guy, better get someone who enjoys talking with people, remembers names and faces and is thrilled by helping and convincing others.
There is interesting advise that when interviewing, in looking for these talents ask for specific examples and go with the initial response. If someone is doing something every day, he will easily come up with an example straight up. If someone just claims to, he will have to settle for generalities instead. Also, if you dig in with follow-up questions to pull out what you want to hear, it was not on the top of his mind, and that again means it is not really what he experiences day in and day out.
There is also a nice section where they claim that there are several schools of thought for hiring:
Skills are trump. Believes experience is best indicator for future success, as evident from employment history. This is also the behavioral school of leopard doesn't change it's spots ... what they did in past they'll do again.
Brains is trump. Believes raw brainpower is all you need. Smart people will be able to 'figure it out'.
Grit is trump. Believes endurance, willpower, tenancy beats smart-asses any day. This is the 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration school. Thinks skills can be taught, but the will to succeed can not.
Of course, all are right. The best are experienced, will-driven brains, in all endeavors. But this is not the whole story. The job must also fit the person. But selecting does not end with hiring. You always should learn nore about your people and refine where they best fit.
Set clear expectations. Don't tell how, tell what you need done. People will surprise you with their ingenuity. Give honest and direct feedback. Motivate and develop the person. Teach them the skills they may lack, and focus on their strengths. Regularly interact and ask them how they experience things, what they like, why they like it, to find out who they are and what work would make them happy and effective.
There are some additional ideas, about how to encourage people to refrain from climbing the career ladder up to their level of incompetence (a la The Peter Principle) where they will be ineffective and unhappy, and stick with a job they excel in: by making it clear with pay that any role, done brilliantly is valued (of course, in some roles you have much more leverage, so this can only be carried so far. They suggest pay bands, where you may earn more than your boss, if you are very good, and he is average).
They also make a difference between management, that is organizing the work internally, and leadership, that is giving meaning by having a vision, by looking outside.
No comments:
Post a Comment