Welcome to the big chair. Now prove you deserve it

marley says:

08:46am | 26/08/11

@Macca - one of the big problems with organizations - and believe me it’s not limited to Australia - is promoting the best technical expert (and I’m using that term in the broadest sense) into a management or supervisory role - the best engineer becomes head of research or production;  the best salesman becomes sales manager; the best fighter pilot becomes wing commander. 

Sometimes it works, but often it doesn’t because the skills and qualities that make you very good at delivering a job yourself aren’t the same ones required to get other people to deliver that job.  A lot of “experts” find it impossible to step back from the immediate technical challenges and see the bigger picture.  They micromanage, they get caught up in minutiae, they try to do all the jobs themselves, they compare how they’re staff do something with how they did it back when they had the job - and they completely lack the real vision and leadership needed to manage people or projects.

Tubesteak says:

01:20pm | 26/08/11

Not to disagree with marley because I think she is right in that sense, but I think the best bosses are usually the ones who came up through the ranks.

The worst bosses are often those who have no idea of how the system works, or how things are done, or even how to do them. They often make decisions that will never work in practice.

The trick, to reflect what marley says, is to promote the ones that do have some emtional intelligence and can see things beyond their own scope.

marley says:

01:46pm | 26/08/11

@Tubesteak - oh I agree entirely.  Organizations that think management skills are generic and that they can therefore just parachute people in from other industries, departments or whatever, often lose their way.  Managers do need that technical knowledge to understand the “big picture.”  At the same time, though, to be effective as a manager, you have to back away from that technical side and let the new experts who’ve succeeded you handle the detail.  As you go higher up the chain, you lose more and more of that technical detail, but you replace it with a broader vision of how things should work.  Or that’s the ideal - but not that many people can make the transition.

acotrel says:

07:45am | 26/08/11

@Mahrat
It starts right at the top in the public service .  We have politicians who’ve never had a job, and lack the ability to delegate effectively, and tell others to get to work.  That inability goes right down to the second bottom rung. You just need to learn to play the game - the system runs on bullshit !

marley says:

09:05am | 26/08/11

@acotrel - with respect, when it comes to the civil service you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I spent most of my working life in a public service (not the Australian one) - and to a middle level public servant, the top of the ladder is not the Minister but the Permanent Secretary.  Ministers come and go - they’re the ultimate boss and decision-maker of course - but the standards of the Department are set by the senior civil servant, not the Minister. And I’ve yet to encounter a permanent secretary who couldn’t delegate effectively.

And, I’d remind you that most public servants have worked their way up through the organization, which is what you yourself have defined as the ideal career path for a manager.

The problem that Mahrat describes is one of extremely cumbersome HR rules within the civil service, the high unionization of the work force, the appeal and grievance process etc etc.  A manager can be the best manager in the world, the most inspirational leader, but if he has no capacity to get rid of consistently underperforming staff, then his only option becomes to work around them.  And,  obviously, if you have one unproductive, or worse, disruptive, team member, you’re going to have problems, not to mention that the organization as a whole suffers from the “time servers” filling the ranks.

I personally think that the civil service needs to get a lot more rigorous on performance assessments (I like the American State Department system of “up or out”), and it needs to give its managers the authority to manage their staff.  That means an end to HR systems which protect the employee at the expense of the organization, and ultimately the taxpayer.

acotrel says:

09:38am | 26/08/11

@Marley
‘A manager can be the best manager in the world, the most inspirational leader, but if he has no capacity to get rid of consistently underperforming staff, then his only option becomes to work around them.’

There is an important lesson that managers must learn. - It’s better to ask a question than make a statement.  A question requires an answer , and a recalcitrant employee must become accountable, in making a statement as a manager , you might have to defend it when you get it wrong.  A guilt trip is often more effective than a ‘rant and rave’ !
If anyone should know about the public service, it is me !  The relationship between Sir Humphrey Appleby, and Jim Hacker is real and alive today.  In the end the public servant must do the politician’s bidding. And that is the reality of the relationship between the Reserve Bank and the PM !  The public are whom the public service serve !

acotrel says:

09:44am | 26/08/11

@Marley
’ And I’ve yet to encounter a permanent secretary who couldn’t delegate effectively.’
Get a job in the DOD ! Had to laugh when Brendan Nelson became minister, he had two hopes - Buckley’s and Nunn !

marley says:

11:31am | 26/08/11

@acotrel - you missed my point.  You can’t hold people accountable if there are no repercussions for poor performance.  You can train staff, you can give them performance goals, you can provide them with feedback, but none of it matters a damn if they don’t care and the system won’t allow you to do anything about it.  You end up assigning their work to the competent staff, thereby punishing the good performers, while they lounge around, collect their pay, and go home at the end of the day with nary a care in the world.

marley says:

11:34am | 26/08/11

Well, they do need a boss -not so much to give them orders, but to make sure they know where they organization is going, to ensure that they have the training and resources they need to do the job, to coach them through the rough bits, and to solve the inevitable clashes of opinion and personality that occur from time to time.  Well, that’s how I always thought of management, anyway.

Hugo says:

10:43am | 26/08/11

An engineer acquaintance once applied for a new job. He walked into the room and saw a little chair sitting alone in the middle of the room. At the back where 3 people sitting in a panel all facing tiny chair in the middle. Engineer summed this up walked over to the panel (ignoring the chair) shook their hands, introduced himself and asked them if this is how they intend to conduct the interview (pointing to the chair). The panel members said yes. He said “Thankyou for your time, I’m withdrawing my application as I don’t believe I want to work for this organisation”. Bloody hero.

Kate Southam says:

12:23pm | 26/08/11

Under privacy legislation, recruiters/employers are supposed to gain your permission before contacting nominated referees.
This recruiter might just super cautious to ensure her client gets to meet only qualified candidates. Nothing wrong with you sticking to your guns about not wanting your current employer contacted. No one wants their current employer contacted when they are job hunting on the quiet. Her asking about other roles and not telling you anything about the role is fishy. I hope she wasn’t just getting leads out of you re the other roles you are going for. No one needs to say anything past that they are interviewing for other roles.
Written references are not credible. Sorry, Yours might be but any hiring manager or recruiter worth their salt should verify the facts by talking to the referee by phone - preferably through a landline and reception to confirm they are who they say they are, in the role claimed.

papachango says:

12:36pm | 26/08/11

You should follow some simple rules with recruitment agencies.

1. The must undertake NEVER to pass your CV along to a client without first seeking your explicit approval AND telling you who the client and what the job is. They must seek your permission and tell you who it is they’re sending it to each time.

2. you will only ever provide a referee’s contact details in response to a specific role.

3. Letterheads are actually much easier to fake than a phonecall, and a phone-check is much more valuable to a potential employer, but you must control this process. That includes being told when a reference check is happening so you can warn your referee to expect a call.

4. They have no right to know about other roles you’re applying for, and in anc case the other potential role might be confidential.

You’re expected to respect confidentiality and not talk about salary details etc. Most good agencies will respect these rules. and they should do the same.If they won’t, don’t deal with them - they’re shonks.

Dan says:

11:22am | 27/08/11

Qwerty, he’s probably making sure you earn your money and not skive off. You’ve defined your problem - you’re an underling and with an attitude like that, are destined to remain one.