July 03, 2007
The BBC says that movies are better for teaching management than books (note: link does not go to BBC, but rather an article about the BBC article.
I think that's pretty accurate, actually. If you want to change something in yourself, if you want to learn a new technique that mainly involves personal interactions (meaning, how you present yourself, your words, your body language, etc, is as important as what you want to communicate; i.e., the medium is the message), it is far better to watch people being effective than to read about it.
Modeling is better than explaining for performance-based skills.
I've watched several movies that have helped me be a better leader. When you see someone sacrificing their own personal interest to accomplish the corporate (unit/national) goals, it makes it easier for you to do the same thing in a stressful/crisis situation.
Show Comments »
Our team have hiked with them and conferred with them, and ordered with them and supplied with them, but we all have mistrusted them as to their external habits and modes of lifetime, supposing that their benevolence was pretentious and that their theories were vague.
posted by
portable air conditioner small on January 6, 2012 03:53 PM
The remain of the French court at Munich has left the most penetrating and most sustainable impression. Meaning - by trigger?
posted by
http://airpurifiers-review.com/whirlpool-ap51030k-air-purifier/ on May 16, 2012 10:44 AM
I really like your writing style, excellent info , regards for putting up : D.
posted by
Najnowsze filmy on January 25, 2013 01:54 PM
Novice pretty ts enjoying their massive cocks before cameras. Wanna observe like these horny tranny undertaking the most popular distinctive webcam shows on the web?
posted by
shemale chatrooms on January 28, 2013 11:31 PM
I see something genuinely interesting about your site so I saved to bookmarks.
posted by
Alsandor on February 1, 2013 09:10 PM
Great blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
posted by
Wynajem samochodów w Gdańsku on March 2, 2013 08:52 AM
You have brought up a very superb points , thankyou for the post.
posted by
mon blog on May 22, 2013 12:55 AM
One more thing. I really believe that there are many travel insurance web pages of respectable companies that permit you to enter your journey details and find you the insurance quotes. You can also purchase your international travel insurance policy online by using your current credit card. Everything you need to do is usually to enter the travel particulars and you can begin to see the plans side-by-side. You only need to find the program that suits your finances and needs after which it use your bank credit card to buy the idea. Travel insurance on the internet is a good way to check for a reliable company for international travel cover. Thanks for expressing your ideas.
posted by
Costa Rica Attorney on August 28, 2013 05:29 AM
« Hide Comments
February 18, 2005
Kris brings up an interesting issue on the "I Hate Caillou" post below entitled "Hidden Messages?"
She points out that several TV shows are (or have been) banned from her house.
I've never banned a TV show yet (and I've never banned a commenter, either...).
I suppose I should, because Jay Jay, Caillou, DragonTales, and Clifford are about the most crappy, horrible, boring, lifeless, sappy, saccharine children's shows possible... I do like Jakers, Thomas the Tank Engine, Arthur (pretty good, for the most part; entertaining stories that aren't typical "liberal education ideal" garbage), and Cyberchase (all on PBS).
I guess I could be more concerned about the liberal education ideal content of the ones I don't like, but the way I see it, I was a TV addict growing up myself. The first thing I'd do when I got home after school was watch whatever was on TV until dinner, and I remember lots of nights doing nothing but watch TV after dinner, too.
But when Junior High came around, I started getting very involved in music, sports, and drama, and I often was at home only to sleep. About the same time, my friends and I got into roleplaying and simulation strategy wargaming. TV kind of dropped off my plate, and I rarely watch it anymore, except for football.
And I don't really see my children being affected by that stuff, either. It may be a TV show, but what seems to have the greatest effect on their developing minds is the interaction I have with them, the way I help them resolve disputes, and the system of rewards and punishments I have established to help them internalize the lessons I want them to learn.
Am I being myopic?
Thoughts?
Show Comments »
posted by Nathan on
02:30 PM
|
Comments (0)
February 16, 2005
Interesting article.
One thing that strikes me as that even when these women talk about trying to be the best mommy for the kids, I get the feeling that it is really more about being the best mommy so they can say they are the best mommy. It's less about paying attention to the kids and giving them what they actually need, and more about treating their kids as faceless drones who will be happy, successful Stepford Kids if the these women only follow the right magical formula and go through the motions. There is less heart in their actions and more ego. Motherhood by Superstition.
And then they complain about how no one appreciates their sacrifice.
Again, you don't do it for the appreciation. If it's not all about the kids, it's not right. Even the first lady quoted: "Three hours of intense parenting in the morning before work, three hours of intense parenting after work" is ridiculous. Yes, children need to be loved, played with, and engaged fully...but it also an important part of their development to see their parents interacting with love, to see them be whole persons with hobbies and interests and activities of their own.
It seems like none of these mothers quoted really understood about how to develop a whole person who could be fully independent and secure. They focused so much on mental development they lost some other things. A mommy being obsessed with playground politics? That's how kids learn to get along and resolve disputes! If the mommy gets involved, how will the child ever learn to deal with a bully? Because there are adult bullies in the workplace as surely as there are playground bullies...
And this supposedly explains why the lady cut her baby's arms off....
UPDATE:
Related.
Show Comments »
Good Lord. What an exasperating woman.
You know, the thing that jumps out at me is that she seems to think that life ought to be a whole hell of a lot easier than it actually is. I've seen this same disillusionment around me so much (and felt it myself from time to time), this upset that feminism didn't deliver what it promised (or what they think it promised), this being crushed by the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day and you have to choose how to use them...and that not all of the choices are between ice cream and candy...sometimes they're between broccoli and brussels sprouts...
It makes me sad, this utter unwillingness to acknowledge that the fact that you have *choices* means that by definition you can't have it all...this author (and I think a whole lot of women) expects fixing society to fix her life, and when it doesn't work out that way she wants to embark on another round of "fixing" everything but her own ability to live in reality...not that we shouldn't find ways to balance our lives, but that it's unhealty to try to live in the world we *wish* we live in...
No, I haven't been thinking about any of this as I adjust to motherhood. Not at all.
posted by
Deb on February 16, 2005 08:08 AM
Another thing that struck me in retrospect is how they think they are staving off failure and disaster through mental stimulation alone.
Are they doing devotions with their children? Taking them to church and Sunday School? Praying with them?
Good grades and intellectual development don't prevent someone from being an alcoholic. Being smart doesn't keep you from giving up on the world and living in the street. Having a large vocabulary and getting into the best schools doesn't mean you don't go bankrupt and lose everything.
The people who fail the biggest in life are the ones who think academic achievement is all you need. Dealing with stress and overcoming setbacks is more important than solving differential equations in your head. It's when someone expects to get everything they want that they despair and give up when they don't get it immediately.
These women are setting their kids up for failure.
And then their solution is to recreate society to help mothers more?
...this is getting silly...
posted by
Nathan on February 16, 2005 09:19 AM
Good point, Nathan, and one I was trying to make in my own post on the issue. We think we're doing our kids a favor by creating this bubble of success and achievement and information around them, when life really isn't like that. We're giving them an inaccurate preparation for reality, and it seems like we ourselves have an inaccurate perception of reality as it is.
It takes a change from within, a re-setting of goals to align with those that God has set out for us, rather than those we artificially adopt from our surroundings. It's too much to expect the godless MSM to ever really get that, I suppose.
posted by
Kris on February 16, 2005 09:30 AM
Kris,
Once I leave for work, I can't access blogspot or typepad blogs until I get back home, so I wasn't able to see what you actually said... :(
posted by
nathan on February 16, 2005 09:41 AM
Amen, Nathan! This happy-happy, let's not have competition so all our kids have high self-esteem crap makes me crazy. My little boy is intellectualy gifted. At 7 and in first grade, he's reading fourth-grade books and doing third-grade math. Great, right? Not so much, actually; the kid doesn't have to work for anything, and that worries the hell out of me.
The only way for kids to develop self-esteem (the *real* kind, not the kind that we now try to give them just for taking up space and breathing) is by hard work coupled with results. Because daily life is not presenting my son with much in the way of challenges, I enrolled him in karate: self-discipline and hard work rolled into one! And he loves it, but he's not very good at it, so it's a great way for him to build self-esteem as he works at it.
If we shield our children from challenges and hard work; if we insist on keeping them entertained at every moment; if we focus every ounce of our attention on them at all times, we're doing them a great disservice, and they'll be paying for it into adulthood.
posted by
Kathleen on February 16, 2005 05:46 PM
Your blog is the first one I've seen that seems to be where I'm at. Below is a cut and past from mine.
Response to Mommy Madness
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6959880/site/newsweek/?GT1=6190
I just read the article Mommy Madness by Judith Warner of Newsweek. She tries to paint a bleak picture of what happens when women choose motherhood over profession. Her portrait of American mothers who lose there identity is based on 150 interviews throughout the US. She appears to be confused about what motherhood is. She confuses individuality of not being a mother with responsibilities of being a mother.
She said she read somewhere and quotes statistics about how mothers are depressed and so forth. I read a statistic on depressed women who chose career over family and now regret it. The point is we make our bed and have to sleep in it. Many tried the career path and in the end did not like the outcome. Some did.
I have one more statistic that we are all familiar with. It was called the National Election of 04. The majority of this country chose an agenda that followed along the lines of Family Values. Yes the "F" word that some don't want to acknowledge. This value crossed all social, economical, religious, and racial lines.
She attempts to find blame for these depressed mothers. The lack of part time child day care and other lacking social programs such as tax breaks for companies. She suggests that we use "...home-grown American solutions.." Then she uses France as an example to model part time day care. Do we really want to go the way of France?
The writer fails to recognize that life gives us individual problems. We live in a country of the free. We choose our own paths and how to live it. As a country we saw the women's revolution in the 70's. More women bought the idea that they could be a professional worker and our children could be raised by someone else. The 70's was also the "Me" era. Remember the phrase, "I know this will hurt you but I have to think about me." It was the battle cry of Therapists and people willing to spend $50 an hour to buy that drivel. I got news for you, that social experiment didn't work.
The article has a woman sitting amongst a crowd of children in a sing along. The caption states that this women is well educated from Dartmouth and is stressful, lonely and tired. Please! What does having a higher education have to do with motherhood? Get off of your social snobbery! Should she have known better because she has a degree in something? Was it in motherhood?
Does somehow having a college education make someone above others? I find it difficult to equate a college education with real life experience of raising children. I went to a college and found that it was mostly Professors with little life experiences claiming to know the answers. I found the real world to be very different from College. It can be unforgiving and sometimes cruel. You get what you put or not put into it. Reality Check.....parenthood is a learning experience that cannot fully be taught in a classroom.
If you ask that women if she had a chance never to have the child you know what her answer would be. Quit trying to blame your desperation on others and the government. It is time we take on our own responsibilities for our decisions. Handouts is not the answer.
From my little corner of the country I see the following. I'm surrounded by working class blue collar women. The women who choose to have children will quit their jobs provided they can afford to be a stay at home mom. Why? Because they choose to. The ones that can't usually long to be at home with their children. Why? Because that is human nature.
It does not have to be forever. Once the children get into school you can go back to your profession if you choose. The rewards of being the foundation outweighs the personal achievements in any given profession.
My wife chose to be a stay at home mother. It's not because I wanted her to. It's because as a couple we decided it was time to set path towards parenthood. We made sacrifices to accomplish this. The obvious is the smaller income. Did we lose something? Sure, sometimes money is tight. Did we do the right thing? You bet. We know this every time our children make the right decisions based on the foundation we gave them by having a stay at home mother!
Our kids are not going to be raised by a Village as some would like us to believe. Our children will be raised by parents who were willing to make the changes and won't look back and cry about it. The outcome will be children who will grow up to be responsible citizens.
posted by
Boots56894 on February 20, 2005 04:21 PM
« Hide Comments
posted by Nathan on
05:32 AM
|
Comments (6)
»
Anywhere But Here links with:
Mommy Madness
January 13, 2005
Many thanks to all of you who have offered support and prayers and well-wishes.
One of the reasons I vent here is because you can only tell a friend so many times what is irritating you. The more something is bothering me, the more I need to say it; I wasn't looking for attention or affirmation, but it was appreciated, nonetheless.
Sometimes I need to get stuff out, yanno? I want to do everything I can to preserve my children's love for their mother, so that when she is ready to be a Mom again (if ever), there are as many bridges intact as possible. Another way to put that: I never want my kids to hear me say anything negative about her ever. And I'm making the divorce as easy on her as I can. I want to be able to tell them that I did everything I could to help her find happiness and be successful.
I hope I'm a good Daddy. It's too soon to tell.
It's easy to deal with a 3-year-old's problems...most of them can be solved with a hug.
A year ago I wasn't all that good of a daddy. While I was more involved than many, perhaps, I still had the attitude of, "I work hard and I deserve to relax!"
6 months ago I still lost my temper too much, was still too much the (ex-) Army Sgt stereotype, ordering my kids to clean their room in the front leaning rest position (okay, that's an exaggeration).
If there's anything I'm doing right, it's that I've learned that all the theory in the world goes out the window if doesn't work in reality. And kids (at least my kids, perhaps) are straightforward enough that you can tell pretty quickly when something is working or not. I have enough leadership training that I can apply some of that to thinking of new ways to get the kids to eat vegetables, or potty training, or treating their toys and each other with respect.
Another thing I think I've learned that I haven't seen many people talk about is that you truly do make things better for yourself if you put your kids' needs totally in front of your own. Meaning, one of the most important things kids need is your Full Attention*. First, it lets them know they are worth your full attention. Second, half the time they don't actually need help, they just want someone to engage them. If you only do it halfway, they will just bug you more, so if you are putting it off because you are busy or need to relax, then they'll keep disturbing you until you go crazy (see: Me as "parent", 6 months ago). Fully engage your kids, giving them what they need to feel satisfied before you worry about your own needs. That way you will be able to relax or concentrate more fully.
Read More "Parenting (Re: Recent Anecdote)" »
Show Comments »
You have a very humble and mature attitude about the whole affair, from what I can gather. I'm glad you have a place where you *can* vent. As far as being a good parent, I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that without continual uninterrupted grace from God, I'm a horrible mom.
You have given me pause to think about just how much I *am* engaging my own kids. I tend to be on the quiet, aloof side and I'd be happy spending an entire evening alone in a room if it were necessary. Solitary confinement wouldn't be punishment for me. Anyway, I have to struggle to purposefully engage my kids because it's not my nature. Thankfully they're all three pretty good at engaging with me!
Bless you, dear one. Keep blogging... : )
posted by
IowaSoccerMom on January 13, 2005 05:48 PM
Regardless of how you may feel about your ex-wife, preserving your children's love for their mother is absolutely the best thing you can do for them. This will pay off huge dividends as they grow older and mature and understand more about their mother.
My mother left our family when I was seven, due to a mid-life crisis. Despite the pain, anger, and disappointment he must have felt, my father NEVER said anything negative about my mother, at least not in my presence. I was too young to comprehend what was going on, I didn't have any answers, and I tended to take it out (unfairly) on my stepmother. As I grew older I realized that my mother had a lot of imperfections and made some serious mistakes with her life, but I still loved her anyway and forgave her . Today all members of my family (including parents and step-parents) can gather together without fear of conflict. Too many families these days are unable to do this.
I realize I've rambled a bit, but you seem to have struck a nerve. Letting your children love their mother despite her imperfections or your feelings about her is the right thing to do, and I can testify to that. They will thank you for it someday.
posted by
diamond dave on January 13, 2005 07:32 PM
My thanks to you both. Words....fail me.
posted by
Nathan on January 13, 2005 07:47 PM
Nathen- I did not write this but I fowarded it on to you for its wisdom. My daughter left her husband because he was an alcolic. We always treat him with respect and never say anything bad in front of him we we have contact. Good luck with your relationships with your children-BB
The nature of parenting
I frequently have had occasion in the last few weeks to contemplate the nature of parenting, and more particularly how I measure up in the endeavor. There are days, like today, when the work is so hard, so emotional, and so exhausting that I wonder how I can possibly continue with it one more day. We live in a culture that tells us incessantly how important it is to “be true to ourselves” and bombards us with the message that pursuit of our own personal happiness, convenience, satisfaction, and fulfillment is our highest calling. Applied to parenting, such a worldview is disastrous.
Parenting is a selfless undertaking, and I am convinced that if people grasped one scintilla of the daunting nature of the task, they might never willingly agree to take it on, in spite of its many rewards and satisfactions. Being human, no parent can ever be completely selfless, but we cannot afford to act as if our lives can continue unchanged by the birth of our children – because they change everything. (I recently saw a father on Oprah who said, as justification for his incredibly selfish behavior, that his life did not end when his childrens' began. I found myself shouting at the television, "YES IT DID!") It is an enormous responsibility – as parents, we are the primary influences on our children, the primary shaping force. And while we aren’t the exclusive factor in the equation, how we do our jobs will have a direct impact on what sort of adults our children grow up to be, which in turn affects what sort of culture and world we will all live in 20 and 30 and 40 years from now. And it’s all OJT! Although there are signposts along the way, we won’t really know what sort of job we’ve done until it’s all over and too late to change anything. That is a sobering and sometimes intimidating reality.
The other reality is that once the job is undertaken, we don’t really have the option of throwing in the towel. Of course, some people do so, or do it functionally if not literally. But for responsible parents, the option to give up when the going gets tough is no option at all. Of all the relationships we enter into in our lives, the one between parent and child is the one that we cannot end at will – friends come and go, marriages are terminated through divorce, but no matter what goes on between us, my daughter will be my daughter until the day I die.
My daughter is deeply discouraged, and doubts her own worth and value. This is not an uncommon condition in teenage girls, but in my daughter’s case, puberty is complicated by adoption-related issues of abandonment and anger. My job, as her mother, is to simultaneously hold her accountable and build her up – what a painfully difficult line to walk! I believe – though I do not know for certain – that I can train her best in part by setting an example worth emulating – equal parts prayer, grace, strength, compassion, humor, and commitment, at least to the best of my ability and with God’s help. Daughter leads me to believe I’m right in my belief by telling me, when she was crying to me this afternoon, that she “hates” me for being there for her no matter what, for loving her even when she doesn’t deserve it, and for believing in her even when she’s screwed up. I praise God that I am becoming better and better able to love her selflessly, and to resist taking her behavior personally, and I praise Him even more that she is beginning to recognize, respect and value that love – because from that will come a sense of her own value and a desire to be worthy of love and commitment. Out of that kind of desire and sense of Godly self-worth grows a willingness to set and meet high standards of behavior, in thought and deed, which are virtually impossible to impose externally through mere parental discipline.
My daughter doesn’t get away with as much as she thinks she does, and I am not nearly as stupid as she thinks I am. The difference is that she doesn’t see the big picture, and I am trying to. Love is a potent force, and I intend to continue to bathe her in it. I’m sure I am making mistakes, but I will not use my love for her – ever – to make her feel small, or worthless, or hopeless. I had enough of that growing up to know how devastating love can be when wielded selfishly. This relationship isn’t about me!!
I don’t have all the answers, not by a long shot. Parenting is incredibly hard work, but it is also an enormous privilege. God is softening my daughter’s heart, and I see signs of that every day. She’s wrestling with new self-awareness and a new sense of who she is as God’s child, as my child, as a young lady who is no longer a child but not yet a woman. I pray that God will continue to plant the soil of her spirit deeply, and I thank Him for the privilege of watering what grows there and tending it as best I am able. The outcome, ultimately, is in His hands.
May God bless and keep my daughter. May He give me strength, wisdom, and compassion as I undertake to shepherd her through these next few years. May He guard our family and keep it a place of refuge, of encouragement, and of love. May God keep us humble, with eyes and hearts turned eternally toward His light.
posted by The Grouchy Old Yorkie Lady permalink 7 Woofs | Trackback (0)
posted by
BOB BAKER on January 16, 2005 01:32 AM
Yorkie Lady, I can sure relate to you! My 16 yr old and I have been through some rough times.
Nathan, Since I am new to your blog I don't know that background on this, but I admire the way you are handling it. I wish I could say it will get easier, but it won't. Like yorkie said, kids don't see the big picture so it's hard to explain things to them. Just stay strong, pray hard, and keep being the kind of Dad you seem to be.
posted by
Rightwingsparkle on January 16, 2005 02:29 PM
« Hide Comments
posted by Nathan on
01:20 PM
|
Comments (5)
December 28, 2004
One thing that struck me as I was driving to work with the kids*:
If something is important enough that you hammer a mistake with a punishment (even if merely a "don't do that"), then it is certainly important enough to hammer the success when they do it right. In fact, you should aggressively praise correct behavior quite a bit.
Much of good parenting and good leadership is catching someone doing something right so you can praise them for it.**
If leadership is the art of influencing people to do what they don't naturally want to do (and it is), then your tools fall into two groups: positive reinforcement of wanted behavior and negative punishment of unwanted behavior. You should have a much heavier toolbox for the positive reinforcement side. It boggles my mind that so many would-be leaders don't actively seek out ways to positively motivate their subordinates. It is inexplicable to me that someone who would sweat blood for 5 hours over an award package won't spend 5 words to praise a good performace. I understand the idea is that if one person gets an award, the rest will work harder to try to achieve that same award...but their are problems with that concept:
-awards don't motivate everyone
-awards only go to the person who did "the best"...thus a person gets the same reward for coming close as they do for not trying: nothing
-when one person wins a few of the monthly or quarterly awards, it actually demotivates those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that reputation may matter more than actual achievement
Consider how much a pat on the back can mean to someone who has been sweating and laboring without expectation of anyone noticing...it costs 5 minutes of time, and maybe 30 minutes of observation to know who deserves it and when it would have the greatest effect. Compare that with the 5 hours of pain/frustration in trying to write an awards package, and a good leader should easily be able to tell where the time is better spent.
...not that writing awards packages aren't important. But if you spend more time observing your troops to know when/where pats on the back will do the most good, then you have a better idea of what your troops are doing all the time, which makes awards packages easier to write. While a leader certainly can't be expected to remember everything that 15-20 subordinates did over a full year, it is disheartening to a subordinate if the leader has no idea what you accomplished at all...
Simply put, if you don't know what your people are accomplishing, what exactly are you leading?
Read More "Carrots and Sticks" »
*continuing to run with the idea that parenting and leadership of adults have many common aspects
**Which is an apt description of "setting up your subordinate for success"
« Hide "Carrots and Sticks"
Show Comments »
I think your military training is showing, Nate.
Re: *- this is true as my husband frequently tells me. The difference is that you can fire the adults if they don't follow the plan....
P.S. I came in second on the state placement test- right behind you!
posted by
Rae on December 28, 2004 02:09 PM
What, you don't fire your kids?
I fire mine about once a week, on average...[grin]
The sad thing is that there are people in the military with more time in service, higher rank, and more time in leadership positions that apparently haven't internalized or even considered some of these aspects of leadership. Military tradition and the UCMJ should support and aid your leadership, not substitute for it.
posted by
Nathan on December 28, 2004 02:55 PM
« Hide Comments
posted by Nathan on
09:03 AM
|
Comments (2)
December 27, 2004
One thing you hear time and time again from military leaders is "Loyalty flows both ways." I must assume it is a promise from a leader that if he receives loyalty, he'll give loyalty back...as in, if the leader feels supported, he will provide top cover to the troops (or troop, as the case may be); conversely, if the leader feels a lack of loyalty from subordinates, he will allow "crap to roll downhill, and add a little of his own to it."
That really isn't the way it works.
Loyalty is a closed-loop circuit, just as in electrical matters. The only way for loyalty to flow at all is if it is coming down from above just as much as it is rising up from below.
This is one of the reasons "take care of your troops" is such an important maxim; if you don't, they won't take care of you. It's not a selfish decision as much as it is a natural result.
But the thing is, it is the leader who has the lead. Every breakdown of loyalty I've ever seen came from the top first, when someone in charge started caring more about their own promotion bullets than taking care of the troops or the mission. That creates a vicious cycle in which people start scrambling to cover their own butts, and the resulting train wreck is a sight to see...but not good for anyone involved. Unfortunately, it is usually not the leader who pays the price, because leaders have ways of deflecting blame for their own failures onto subordinates.
And you know what? It's amazing how much similarity there is between leadership and parenting.
Show Comments »
This is also an ignored precept of management.
Trust is something that is propagated.
You have to trust your employees, even if they are untrustworthy, because two things happen:
1) If you do not trust your employee, they behave in an untrustworthy manner.
2) If you do trust your untrustworthy employee, they behave in a trustworthy manner.
It seems counter-intuative. But the more you put your trust in someone, the more trustworthy they become. They reflect what you feel about them.
Some of the biggest growth, I've seen, in my co-workers is when someone trusted them with a task; and took the risk of giving someone who didn't appear to be capable of completing it. The worker always seems to meet the challange, and ends up a better employee for it.
All it took was a manager/project leader who changed how they felt personaly about them.
posted by
Jeremy on December 27, 2004 08:06 AM
Actually, there's an additional dichotomy. You start out with two kinds of employees: the kind who respond to being trusted, and the kind who don't.
If you trust your employees, those who respond will become more trustworthy; those who don't will remain untrustworthy.
If you don't trust your employees, those who respond to being trusted will instead respond to not being trusted. Those who don't respond to being trusted will remain untrustworthy.
Trusting your employees will separate the good ones from the not-so-good ones, and you can weed out the ones who are untrustworthy regardless of what you do. It's not a certainty of success, but it leaves you -- and them -- with an opportunity to succeed neither of you will have if you withhold your trust.
posted by
McGehee on December 27, 2004 11:30 AM
Absolutely!
And if I may put in a plug for my own blog (and if I can't do it on my own blog, what good is it to have one, I ask you?), this ties right back into Setting your people up for success. If you trust a seemingly untrustworthy subordinate with a task, but give them the tools for success, they will be that much easier to set up for success the next time, because they've had a taste for it.
You probably need a back-up plan for the more vital tasks (although you should keep it to yourself, or you are demonstrating a lack of trust), but few people can naturally succeed at a difficult, advanced task without training.
That's a good part of leadership: training your subordinates to replace or even obviate you.
Mind you, all this is more easy in the abstract than in the practice, but I get chances to practice in being a parent. Seriously. I may have to write a story about someone who turns out to be a great leader when no one expects it solely due to their experience as a parent...
posted by
Nathan on December 27, 2004 02:56 PM
« Hide Comments
posted by Nathan on
07:45 AM
|
Comments (3)
December 16, 2004
One of the things I hated about the Army was its over-emphasis on rank. Many times, it seemed like an E-2 just wasn't worth as much as an E-5. An E-7 was allowed to verbally abuse an E-4 at will. The Army as a whole didn't seem to care at all about junior enlisted.
But the Army seemed to excellent at growing leaders. Is there a connection? Could you develop top-notch leaders without having a rigid class structure based on rank? I'm not sure.
However, one thing I really liked about the Army was one pair of phrases I heard enough times to make me sick (at the time): "Setting up for success" and "setting up for failure".
The idea is, you don't just give a subordinate a task and let 'em go. Your job as a leader was to assess what your troop needed to succeed, and get it to them along with the task. Much of it was based on the level of experience of the troop, of course. A younger troop would need task, standards, detailed instructions, training, supervision, and follow-up. The more experienced the troop, the more you could drop.
The interesting thing was that if a troop failed at something, the first place they looked was at the troop's first-line leader: did you set up your troop for success, or for failure?
Where I work now, that's not really an issue, unfortunately. If your subordinate screws up, a "good leader" gives them negative paperwork. Enough negative paperwork, and the person is fired. That's doing a good job. I guess the best "leaders" must either be lucky enough to have self-motivated troops, or they are better at wording the negative paperwork to be inspiring rather than discouraging.
I wish I had some really profound insight to give on this subject. But simply put, if your subordinates aren't doing a good job, the first place to look is at yourself. Are you giving adequate and appropriate feedback? Are you ensuring the task and standards are fully understood? Are you providing adequate training for the task?
Not every subordinate is a good worker, of course. If you are setting them up for success, and they still fail, then perhaps the problem is with the subordinate. But that should be the last place to check, not the first.
Show Comments »
posted by Nathan on
06:30 PM
|
Comments (0)
December 01, 2004
I think that perhaps the cruelest feedback you can ever give someone is: “You are having a problem due to faulty judgment.”
The problem with this assessment is that it is both the height of arrogance and impossible for the receiver to do anything about.
It is the height of arrogance, because the only way you can criticize a person’s judgment is if you completely understand the circumstances they were in and the information they had available and still think that you could have used better judgment. It is an automatic assumption that in almost any given situation, you would do better.
It is also impossible for the person to do anything about it because if they truly try to do something about it, they are put in the position of having to second-guess every decision they make, a recipe for certain failure. Moreover, unless you expect them to continually come back to you to make decisions for them, they will be using the same judgment you criticized as being faulty to decide what normal reactions are the result of faulty judgment. If not actually an impossible situation by definition, it is at least an untenable situation that will ruin self-confidence.
If you ever find yourself wanting to criticize someone’s judgment, it would be well worth the time to attempt to determine exactly what mistaken assumptions are held that might be leading to bad decisions. Assumptions can be changed, and decisions will be improved accordingly. Forcing someone to question their own judgment is a form of torture, I think.
Show Comments »
posted by Nathan on
08:02 AM
|
Comments (0)