I found a link to a web site that is doing a survey regarding what makes a good manager vs. what makes a bad manager (managers in general -- not specifically QM's). The link is:

*** DEAD LINK ***

There are 3 simple questions and you can get a copy of the survey results for free if you like. I'm not in any way associated with the outfit doing the survey. I just thought some cove members might like the opportunity to comment if for no other reason than to vent a little about some of the bad managers they have worked for -- or are still working for. :mad:

It might also be interesting to see the opinions posted here regarding what everyone thinks makes a good/bad manager. Not that any cove memebers are opinionated or anything! :smokin:

*Edit by E. Wall - Took out period in hyperlink after htm

My boss is one of the good ones. He’s very supportive and is interested in developing the people who work for him. He gives praise where praise is due, and he provides direction and instruction when something doesn’t measure up. No yelling, no name-calling. Just another attempt at communicating what needs to be done. We work well enough together that I consider him a more learned coworker and don’t feel the weight of his “superiority”.

I had a super boss at a previous position also. She appreciated diversity and could find something to treasure in everyone’s personal flaws. She never had to threaten or use her “power” to get something done because we all wanted to please her and not let her down. She was like a “mom”, loving and kind.

So while one uses an intelligent approach, the other was a people-person. These two bosses are at opposite ends but achieve the same effect.

Of course I’ve had poor bosses also. Mostly they lacked backbone. Within a corporate structure there should be some level of authority which they can assume is their own and no further “permission” is needed. I appreciate the take-charge kind of boss who makes his/her own decisions and stands ready to accept any fallout that occurs. And a boss that will support and defend me (if necessary) tooth and nail.

Along with lack of backbone there closely follows lack of attention. It’s important for a boss to spend time with you. My last boss practically ignored me. Perhaps he thought it showed he was confident that I could/would work on my own without direction, but to me it was terribly frustrating to be given no direction at all! There was no teamwork. Had he been stronger, and more attentive, I would be there still. I reckon he actually did me a huge favor, right? ;)

Along with lack of backbone there closely follows lack of attention. It’s important for a boss to spend time with you. My last boss practically ignored me. Perhaps he thought it showed he was confident that I could/would work on my own without direction, but to me it was terribly frustrating to be given no direction at all! There was no teamwork. Had he been stronger, and more attentive, I would be there still. I reckon he actually did me a huge favor, right?


We are an off-location sight. We're about 6 miles from our main facility. We've been here for 4 years and I can count on one hand how often my boss has been here. I do get an email every two weeks letting me know I need to send my timecard in. I probably couln't pick him out of a police line-up.

I did see him about three months ago. We discussed the situation with GM concerning our 17025 accreditation. It was at that time he delegated the writing of the QM to me. Section's 4.1 to 4.14 concerns requirements for Management. No help. No how ya doing? Nothing. Gonna be a shock to his system when he discovers what he will need to be doing from now on to obtain and retain accreditation.

I envy anyone who can say they have a good boss. I had one when I was on production many years ago, but he was the only one during my 25 year visit here.





Thanks. I needed that!:rolleyes: :D

A good boss discusses what is needed and what resources you require.

A bad boss tells you to cut XXX by 10% without any reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A good boss sets up a meeting.

A bad boss calls you to the office with no explanation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A good boss backs you up even though made the decision without their input.

A bad boss blames you for the fuc#-up
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A good boss trusts you because they are trusting in themselves in hiring people that will carry out their programs.

A bad boss passes the buck and hedges.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A good boss will come out to the activity area and ask if you need any assistance.

A bad boss will stay in the office and say to their boss, What the **** are they doing, that's not what I said!
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A good boss will get down and dirty with you when the occasion arises.

A bad boss will sit in the office and call maintenance and blame the whole situation on them.
------------------------------------------------------------------

A good owner or president knows when the boss is full of **** and is blaming averything or anybody else.

A good worker bides the time and waits for the boss to be found out as an asshole or a consumate liar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some personal thoughts, not sorry for the swear word! Only 26 years of working with people.

In case there are any questions, I acted as a "boss" for a few months and decided it was not for me. I don't have the patience nor personality. I guess I am not just a people person and expect too much from others to be an effective manager or boss.

Thanks, Al...

:)

I enjoy managing and "I" think I do a fair job of it. I enjoy the responsibility and challenges it brings. It's not near as exciting as what I did in the USN, however, I'm not worried about going home in a body bag - that is until I hit the expressway!!!!!

It's not for everyone. It doesn't mean you're not good at what you do or that you are incompetent. Some people are followers, some are leaders, and some are managers. Notice there is a difference between a Leader and a Manager.

Is there some way to "coach" a bad boss into being a great boss?

One of the areas I have struggled with for years is getting managers to answer an email in a timely fashion.

Any tips, tricks or techniques?

Jaime

Is there some way to "coach" a bad boss into being a great boss?

One of the areas I have struggled with for years is getting managers to answer an email in a timely fashion.

Any tips, tricks or techniques?

JaimeJaime, maybe this is the way to go Upward Influence Resources (http://www.odt.org/Classics.htm)

Hi Jaime, no good answers here as I'd classify the last 4 managers (including my current one) as among the worst I've had in the 30 years of employment since college. This is at 2 different companies - the 5th one who hired me originally at my prior company was good - very fair, occasionally stubborn (but would explain his reasoning & we could argue - sometimes I even won!) and pointed me in a direction compatible with the company's philosophy.

If a manager doesn't respond, you always have the option of going over his head to the next higher up. Whether to do so depends a lot on the corporate culture, and whether you believe you'd get an answer from that manager. I tried going up the ladder with #4, but got the same lack of response from him as I did my manager so I ended up just being more frustrated - part of the reason I changed employers. (One of the reasons I have a toe in the market currently.)

Not answering emails can be because of receiving too many to handle efficiently, or a personal (or cultural) bias towards face to face meetings rather than email. What gets really frustraing currently, is when I follow up an email with tracking someone down by phone or in person and still not getting an answer in a timely manner.

Good luck - looks like an interesting revived thread. Al - thanks for the post/link that looks pretty interesting also.

Is there some way to "coach" a bad boss into being a great boss?

One of the areas I have struggled with for years is getting managers to answer an email in a timely fashion.

Any tips, tricks or techniques?

Jaime

I won't say he was previously "bad", but I did loan my boss's boss's boss the Tom Peters book "Reimagine" and I must say it was the best thing I did last year.

By the way, I have seen supposed "lessons learned" for managers stating don't respond to email in a timely manner. That'll give people the message to not send so many emails and cut back on your email inbox. Supposedly some think that is a good thing.

http://sbms.pnl.gov/lessons/g301d160.htm

Not answering emails can be because of receiving too many to handle efficiently, or a personal (or cultural) bias towards face to face meetings rather than email. What gets really frustraing currently, is when I follow up an email with tracking someone down by phone or in person and still not getting an answer in a timely manner.

Good luck - looks like an interesting revived thread. Al - thanks for the post/link that looks pretty interesting also.

Thanks to Al, Kevin and Steve for the responses and links.

Because I recognize that the managers I work with are very busy, I only send an email unless it is necessary or require their input to proceed further with a project. Nevertheless, the emails remain unanswered. When I have scheduled a face to face meeting it usually gets postponed (which is why I only send emails or schedule meetings when totally necessary). I would walk to the managers' offices to ask my question directly but visiting a manager's office is not always possible due to distance limitations.

I'll review the content in the links posted.

Thanks again.
Jaime

All good and helpful responses!

Let me add (a copy) of a comment I made in another thread:

Wes Bucey offers service as "Strategy Advisor" - Seeking Case Studies for Book
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9117
The specific post is
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=98336&postcount=40

I'm sorry to say (being one of the biggest sinners) we Quality folk have a tendency to tell others how to build a watch when they only need and want to know the time of day within a margin of 10 or 15 minutes.

If you don't get responses to your emails, often it is because the "call to action" gets lost in the clutter of your message.

Currently, the Cove Moderators and Administrators are making a concerted effort to locate and respond to "orphan" posts which never received a reply. As I personally review some of those posts, I am struck by the ones which don't seem to even invite a reply because of the phrasing. (Obviously, there are some "orphans" which are so esoteric none of the Cove readers have any insight in resolving the problem posed.)

My advice - if you are sending emails to a boss and don't get a reply, you need to find a trusted friend to review your email to determine if rephrasing and other editing might help get the response you crave.

You might be right Wes, in some cases maybe the message gets lost. But I'd bet this is only rarely the reason for lack of reply. The fact is, based on what I have seen in my 25+ years working for various bosses/managers/supervisors is that many (maybe half or more) who hold that title simply do not deserve it based on my personal criteria. Some of these sub-par folks could make the grade with some coaching or training, but some are just so far out that they really are probably beyond hope. I never thought it was rocket science, but IMO truly good bosses are about as rare a find as a person who can throw a 90 mph fastball.

I'll agree there are a lot of clueless bosses, but surely you have to agree with me there are at least as many clueless subordinates.

The real disaster is when you have both in the same organization - the image I get in my mind is one of Rube Goldberg's complicated inventions for performing a simple task.

By the way, I have seen supposed "lessons learned" for managers stating don't respond to email in a timely manner. That'll give people the message to not send so many emails and cut back on your email inbox. Supposedly some think that is a good thing.

http://sbms.pnl.gov/lessons/g301d160.htm

I read the content of the link above and the second part (https://sbms.pnl.gov/lessons/g301d170.htm) of the article.

The article provides methods on how to get to the point briefly and directly. I had not being doing so.

Jaime

My advice - if you are sending emails to a boss and don't get a reply, you need to find a trusted friend to review your email to determine if rephrasing and other editing might help get the response you crave.

I will begin to do this. Not only will it help me but it will inform other managers of the issues in question.

Jaime

Vindication!:thanks:

I'll agree there are a lot of clueless bosses, but surely you have to agree with me there are at least as many clueless subordinates.


Sure! There are lots of clueless subordinates! But to promote them to management is almost criminal and certainly stupid. :bonk:

I always figured I could handle 80% of all people management issues simply by asking myself how I'd like to be treated in the same situation. The other 20% probably deals with laws, interpreting cryptically-written benefits booklets, etc. and requires some specialized training. JMO.

I actually liked managing people because I enjoyed seeing people learn and grow and advance and be happy about it. Yeah, there were some bad times, and some jerks you had to deal with, but the rewards exceeded the pain.

Sure! There are lots of clueless subordinates! But to promote them to management is almost criminal and certainly stupid. :bonk:
Very funny! :lmao:

Very funny! :lmao:
Y'all need to read the Dilbert Principle sometime!

When I have scheduled a face to face meeting it usually gets postponed (which is why I only send emails or schedule meetings when totally necessary). I


I feel your frustration. I have a boss who is a sweet man but hopeless at managing. He likes to take it all on by himself and never blinks in the direction of his underlings. Its nice to be trusted to do a good job BUT most things I do need his input. I sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for the time when he sits still for more than 10 seconds.
It doesn’t happen very often.
I’ve tried explaining what I want from my boss but he doesn’t appear to get it.

Emails don’t work, meetings are looked on suspiciously – like there’s something REALLY wrong.
What can you do?

I have had some awful managers but at least everyone else knew they were awful and supported me in a roundabout fashion. In this company, Im not getting that support (yet – I think its going to happen but its hard waiting)
The positive (cos I like to look on the bright side) is that at least we are learning all the bad habits to avoid should we decide to try the role for size!

I have had some awful managers but at least everyone else knew they were awful and supported me in a roundabout fashion. In this company, Im not getting that support (yet – I think its going to happen but its hard waiting)
The positive (cos I like to look on the bright side) is that at least we are learning all the bad habits to avoid should we decide to try the role for size!

engjane,

Very good point.

Jaime

Folks, even though I have been a "suit" for nearly all of my career, I am not an apologist for bosses. That said, there are some things being written in this thread that scream out to me that there are some important "disconnects" going on that the writers may not be aware of because they are too close to the trees to see the forest.

Communicate clearly the need and PURPOSE for a meeting (conversation in the hall or doorway or email memo - if you can't explain why you need the meeting and why you need the boss in the meeting in 30 seconds or less, you need to edit the message.) Details for the meeting come AFTER agreement to have meeting.
Provide an advance synopsis and agenda for the meeting (very bare bones, but sufficient so a participant can be prepared and not surprised)
Set a realistic time limit for the meeting and stick to the agenda
Don't invite anyone who isn't necessary to explain or resolve the issue
Don't close the meeting without a list of action items (even if it is only to gather more information)
Send a follow-up memo (BRIEF) listing the action items and timetable for completion to pertinent parties
Have respect for everyone's time (especially the boss) - do not let meetings or memos "wander" off the point
Follow-up action items - if you called the meeting, you took on responsibility to follow through - don't whine to the boss, "John didn't do what he was supposed to." If you can't deal with John - THAT'S the issue, not whether or not he did his action item.
In the past 40 years, I have arbitrarily shut down meetings that were going nowhere because the agenda wasn't clear or because the participants weren't prepared or key people weren't present or folks wouldn't stick to the agenda. If I wasn't "boss" enough to shut down the meeting, I would often leave to attend to "urgent" customer matters, asking pointedly for the meeting chair to supply me with a synopsis of the meeting in writing.

If you aren't comfortable running a meeting or your meetings have no respect for time, find a Toastmaster's club to join and learn how to make your point in about 5 minutes. Also learn how to catch and hold an audience's interest.
http://www.toastmasters.org/ Toastmasters is very inexpensive. there are two types of Toastmaster clubs (corporate and community) - I suggest you join a community club rather than one in your corporation so you won't have the added pressure of performing in front of work colleagues.

Wes,

You raise many good points.

But I have a few comments (imagine that! :) ).

#6 -- Not always necessary -- especially if the attendees are higher-level folks, can't they take their own notes and be responsible for knowing what they are supposed to do and by when?

#8 -- If I am not a superior to John how can I "force" him to do what he was assigned? Don't blame me if a peer or superior didn't do their job -- especially if I reminded him/her a few times in the interim. Responsibility w/o authority = disaster.

Wes,

You raise many good points.

But I have a few comments (imagine that! :) ).
Thanks! I'm always happy to engage in meaningful dialog.

#6 -- Not always necessary -- especially if the attendees are higher-level folks, can't they take their own notes and be responsible for knowing what they are supposed to do and by when?
The point of one person being responsible for the meeting notes is to provide uniformity. No one can then say, "Oh! I missed that. Are you sure that's what we agreed?" The minor point is to keep the meeting on track and not distracted by multiple folks taking notes. It is important to distribute the notes ASAP after the meeting and to invite additions or corrections.
#8 -- If I am not a superior to John how can I "force" him to do what he was assigned? Don't blame me if a peer or superior didn't do their job -- especially if I reminded him/her a few times in the interim. Responsibility w/o authority = disaster.
The point is your ability to deal and negotiate with John. If you can't do that to get the task accomplished, the problem is not John's negligence, but the interaction between you and John - an entirely different problem that has nothing to do with the specific task John neglected. The inability to DEAL then becomes the focus of your complaint to the boss, NOT the simple fact that John didn't do the task - that's only a symptom. Good doctors (and bosses) treat the disease, not the symptom.

Thanks for your input, giving me the opportunity to clarify my message.

I respectfully disagree. I refuse to be labeled as part of the problem and as unable to "deal" well with John because of his negligence, laziness, and/or lack of concern for the problem (when John is not under my supervision). Especially in the quality arena, too often the task of solving the root cause of a problem is considered too much trouble -- we have time and $ to sort or do it twice, but no time or $ to fix the problem. John sits at the meeting, agrees there is a problem, agrees to do certain action items before a certain date, and at the next meeting has not done what he agreed to do because he was "too busy" or "had other priorities". That's my fault? Sorry, no.

I respectfully disagree. I refuse to be labeled as part of the problem and as unable to "deal" well with John because of his negligence, laziness, and/or lack of concern for the problem (when John is not under my supervision). Especially in the quality arena, too often the task of solving the root cause of a problem is considered too much trouble -- we have time and $ to sort or do it twice, but no time or $ to fix the problem. John sits at the meeting, agrees there is a problem, agrees to do certain action items before a certain date, and at the next meeting has not done what he agreed to do because he was "too busy" or "had other priorities". That's my fault? Sorry, no.
I fear I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the interaction. I did not assess blame. John may be totally at fault (incompetent or bad attitude), but the problem is related to the interaction. The interaction is what the boss should concern himself with, not the measly little detail of whether John did one task or not. Your job is to bring that failure to interact to the boss's attention, citing the "symptom" as the trigger which got you involved.

It is the boss's job to resolve the failure to interact (regardless of whether it is your fault or John's), so the work of the organization can proceed.

:topic: The misunderstanding of my message may simply be that I have seemed to personalize the issue by using "you" and "John" rather than the more cumbersome "meeting leader" and "person selected to accomplish an action item." If so, I apologize for the inference that any given individual reading this message is either "you" OR "John"

Mike S does have some valid points about the behavior of managers in meetings. Many times the manager feels the purpose of a meeting is a one way communication of what everyone else needs to do but not for identifying tasks that the manager must do.

If we believe the usual comment that 85% of problems are system problems and can only be solved by management, shouldn't 85% of the tasks from meetings be related to management working on those items? I will concede that after management makes a decision and empowers people, the tatical tasks return to the employees.

Just thinking out loud on a cold, snowy Sunday afternoon.

Bill Pflanz

Mike S does have some valid points about the behavior of managers in meetings. Many times the manager feels the purpose of a meeting is a one way communication of what everyone else needs to do but not for identifying tasks that the manager must do.
Where have I said managers are good and perfect?

Despite being a "suit" myself, I have probably excoriated bad management practices as much as anyone.

The purpose of a meeting should be to assess a situation and assign action items. Sometimes the only one who can adequately perform the action item is a manager. This, in fact, could be the "John" we spoke of. In my experience, there can be THE MANAGER is such a position, but it is usually A MANAGER. When "John" is THE MANAGER, you need to cut a fine line between "reminding" John and "nagging" John to perform his action item (or lose your job.)

The fact remains, however, that good, efficient business practice of calling, running, and following up meetings puts the burden of followup and documentation squarely on the shoulders of the guy who calls the meeting. (He may delegate the nitty gritty of typing up notes to a subordinate, but he is then responsible for seeing the subordinate accomplishes the task.)

Responsibility and authority are often two sides of the same coin. The meeting caller may not have authority to FORCE John, but he has the authority and responsibility to document whether John completes the task and to remind John of John's responsibility to perform the task (which John agreed to take - you can't arbitrarily assign a task to a superior which the superior does not agree to perform.)

If we believe the usual comment that 85% of problems are system problems and can only be solved by management, shouldn't 85% of the tasks from meetings be related to management working on those items? I will concede that after management makes a decision and empowers people, the tactical tasks return to the employees.
Actually, the thinking is that 85% of problems are CAUSED by system problems. Sometimes a simple system problem (air conditioning? lighting?) can be the root cause of a host of other problems (absenteeism, setup errors, inspection misreads, misidentification of materials, employee illnesses, accidents, injuries, etc.)

I agree. The manager's task is primarily to make the decision to empower a course of action, not to perform the action. That means that the sum total of the action of the manager is accomplished at the moment he makes the decision and empowers staff to do it. It is still the meeting caller's responsibility to document the decision, follow up, and document the completion of the action item for the report on the accomplishments of the meeting (unless the meeting also has a decision relieving the meeting caller of that responsibility.)

Just thinking out loud on a cold, snowy Sunday afternoon.

Bill Pflanz
Good discourse! The problem seems to be I talk about ideal meetings as the gold Standard and you folks are inferring what should happen from your experience with less than ideal meetings. I want to remind readers that EVERY meeting I have been in was not ideal, but many were. I really have experienced both kinds and I affirm one kind (ideal) is much more pleasant and satisfying to be part of than the other.

Don't allow a negative attitude of the bosses and staff you may have dealt with color your perception of how things OUGHT to be. Changes are mostly incremental, but change for the better CAN occur. This is not a situation where you can sit back and wait for someone else to make things right. Sometimes you have to take the first step AND the first risk. (Nobody ever hit a home run without stepping into the batter's box and risking a beanball.)

I found a link to a web site that is doing a survey regarding what makes a good manager vs. what makes a bad manager (managers in general -- not specifically QM's). The link is:

*** DEAD LINK ***

There are 3 simple questions and you can get a copy of the survey results for free if you like. I'm not in any way associated with the outfit doing the survey. I just thought some cove members might like the opportunity to comment if for no other reason than to vent a little about some of the bad managers they have worked for -- or are still working for. :mad:

It might also be interesting to see the opinions posted here regarding what everyone thinks makes a good/bad manager. Not that any cove memebers are opinionated or anything! :smokin:

*Edit by E. Wall - Took out period in hyperlink after htm

In my opinion, the best managers are those who make sure that their people understand what's expected of them, make sure they have the necessary resources, and then let them do it. In my own experience, the best compliment I ever received from someone reporting to me came during a performance review. At the end of the review I asked the employee if there was anything he wanted to say to me, or if there was anything in particular I could do for him. He thought about it for a few seconds and said, "I like working for you because you let me do my job."

This quote from Peter Drucker also comes to mind: "American workers know how to make quality products. They just need permission." If your employees need constant supervision, they probably need a better manager.

Folks, even though I have been a "suit" for nearly all of my career, I am not an apologist for bosses. That said, there are some things being written in this thread that scream out to me that there are some important "disconnects" going on that the writers may not be aware of because they are too close to the trees to see the forest.

Communicate clearly the need and PURPOSE for a meeting (conversation in the hall or doorway or email memo - if you can't explain why you need the meeting and why you need the boss in the meeting in 30 seconds or less, you need to edit the message.) Details for the meeting come AFTER agreement to have meeting.
Provide an advance synopsis and agenda for the meeting (very bare bones, but sufficient so a participant can be prepared and not surprised)
Set a realistic time limit for the meeting and stick to the agenda
Don't invite anyone who isn't necessary to explain or resolve the issue
Don't close the meeting without a list of action items (even if it is only to gather more information)
Send a follow-up memo (BRIEF) listing the action items and timetable for completion to pertinent parties
Have respect for everyone's time (especially the boss) - do not let meetings or memos "wander" off the point
Follow-up action items - if you called the meeting, you took on responsibility to follow through - don't whine to the boss, "John didn't do what he was supposed to." If you can't deal with John - THAT'S the issue, not whether or not he did his action item.
In the past 40 years, I have arbitrarily shut down meetings that were going nowhere because the agenda wasn't clear or because the participants weren't prepared or key people weren't present or folks wouldn't stick to the agenda. If I wasn't "boss" enough to shut down the meeting, I would often leave to attend to "urgent" customer matters, asking pointedly for the meeting chair to supply me with a synopsis of the meeting in writing.

If you aren't comfortable running a meeting or your meetings have no respect for time, find a Toastmaster's club to join and learn how to make your point in about 5 minutes. Also learn how to catch and hold an audience's interest.
http://www.toastmasters.org/ Toastmasters is very inexpensive. there are two types of Toastmaster clubs (corporate and community) - I suggest you join a community club rather than one in your corporation so you won't have the added pressure of performing in front of work colleagues.

I think this is excellent advice. Some of the protests against it thus far indicate one of the primary problems in business, and that is that people believe that leadership must be left to what you aptly characterize as "suits." Leadership consists in taking the initiative to get something done when no one else want to do it, and not in whining that it's someone else's responsibility. I've seen time and again instances where I've been able to accomplish things without any job description authority just by getting people to talk with each other. Often they will go away with the sense that *they've* solved the problem, which is exactly what you want. It's everyone's responsibility to try and help others to do a better job, without regard for whether you have the authority to do it or not. Make leadership your first priority, and everything else, including titles and rewards, will take care of itself.

I fear I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the interaction. I did not assess blame. John may be totally at fault (incompetent or bad attitude), but the problem is related to the interaction. The interaction is what the boss should concern himself with, not the measly little detail of whether John did one task or not. Your job is to bring that failure to interact to the boss's attention, citing the "symptom" as the trigger which got you involved.

Wes,

Thank you for pointing THIS (the interaction) out. THIS is what I have struggled with for many years. THIS is why my emails/voice mails go unanswered. THIS is what I plan to address from now on.

Jaime

One issue I have often seen is folks arriving late for meetings. I worked for a VP once who had almost no tardiness to his meetings. If he called or chaired the meeting, then his staff was charged $1 per minute for being late. The money went into a kitty and used for the staff dinner at the end of the year.

His meetings were targeted and we dealt with issues quickly. Some banter happened of course, but the meetings were productive.

Hershal

One issue I have often seen is folks arriving late for meetings. I worked for a VP once who had almost no tardiness to his meetings. If he called or chaired the meeting, then his staff was charged $1 per minute for being late. The money went into a kitty and used for the staff dinner at the end of the year.

His meetings were targeted and we dealt with issues quickly. Some banter happened of course, but the meetings were productive.

Hershal
Excellent point, Hershal. I, myself, frequently cut my timing too close to take account for traffic delays, chance meetings in corridors, etc. You, yourself, have been victim of my tight scheduling. I apologize again.

In sum, S--- happens, but that's no excuse to encourage it. Start the meeting on time, ensure meeting is not disrupted for latecomers. Do not tolerate "recap to bring you up to speed" - indicate you will answer any questions during the break or after the meeting about what latecomers missed. It is important not to encourage "enabling" by the rest of attendees to give John Doe the impression the meeting can't start without John Doe. This is one of the reasons a central notetaker/minutes recorder is advantageous.

If John Doe was scheduled to present a report and is late without a phone call in advance indicating how late, this is a severe discourtesy which needs to be addressed privately, not by blowing up at the meeting. The important thing is to maintain control of meeting and yourself. No one respects a leader who has a temper tantrum in public.

If it's a boss who is late, you certainly can't scold, but you can ameliorate the disruption by offering to bring boss up to speed during the break or after meeting "so as not to waste everyone else's time hearing it twice." Believe me, bosses who are savvy appreciate that more than the kowtowing impression no one else's time is important to the organization. Sometimes, however, they have to be gently reminded by using such phrases!

........Leadership consists in taking the initiative to get something done when no one else want to do it, and not in whining that it's someone else's responsibility. I've seen time and again instances where I've been able to accomplish things without any job description authority just by getting people to talk with each other. Often they will go away with the sense that *they've* solved the problem, which is exactly what you want. It's everyone's responsibility to try and help others to do a better job, without regard for whether you have the authority to do it or not. Make leadership your first priority, and everything else, including titles and rewards, will take care of itself.

I mostly agree with your comments. I have beavered away in the background planting seeds and tilling the soil only to watch my plants harvested by others. No big deal as long as the people who matter know who did the real work.

"Make leadership your first priority, and everything else, including titles and rewards, will take care of itself"

I'm not so sure things always work out that well.

I'm in a rest and recuperation phase for a few months, actively NOT making others look good behind the scenes.

Actually this is not completely true, the people who want to try, I will always help.

I'm just sliding with the sliders for a few months. It works for them, and it sure is easier on me.

Yeah. I tried laying back and letting others carry the battle. I can't help myself - I always jump in. I don't mind making everybody look good as long as I know I did the best I could.

I agree that attitude will get you trampled and shunted off in many organizations. Somehow, I never found those organizations enough to my liking to stick around and suffer that abuse.

Tip: a smart cynic can always get ahead by playing the system in such organizations. It smacks of betting against the Chicago Cubs every year. You can make money, but it doesn't feel right.

There are hopeless organizations, no doubt. Sometimes the best thing you can do is get the **** out. But I've also found that sometimes you can make great allies out of people who initially feel threatened just by taking the time to help them out. It's not easy and it doesn't always work, but if it were easy, anyone could do it.

There are hopeless organizations, no doubt. Sometimes the best thing you can do is get the **** out. But I've also found that sometimes you can make great allies out of people who initially feel threatened just by taking the time to help them out. It's not easy and it doesn't always work, but if it were easy, anyone could do it.

Do my eyes deceive, or was the word "he**" just made to look like it might have been "f*ck" in the post above? You can't say "he**" around here? How about "Hades"?

Do my eyes deceive, or was the word "he**" just made to look like it might have been "f*ck" in the post above? You can't say "he**" around here? How about "Hades"?
Yep. Most common (read vulgar) four letter curses and epithets are automatically converted by the software to a series of asterisks.

50 or 60 years ago, my mom created a sign which was prominently displayed over the back bar of her sister-in-law's tavern:

Foul language
is the symptom of an immature mind
struggling to express itself.

The sign hung there for 25 years and it was amazing how effective it was at curbing gutter talk. Patrons would stop newbies in mid-curse, silently point at the sign and the conversation immediately became more genteel. The Cove software acts in the same role of those patrons and the sign by stopping us in mid-curse.

Sorry, but I can't help but feel like something is looking over my shoulder. I think that if I say, in mixed company, that I'm getting the he** out of here, or that my back hurts like he**, anyone who is offended by it has a personal problem. I'm an adult, and I don't need to be protected by software or signs on the back bar. I would like to see really offensive words and phrases such as "six sigma" and "sharing best practices" replaced with asterisks.

Sorry, but I can't help but feel like something is looking over my shoulder. I think that if I say, in mixed company, that I'm getting the he** out of here, or that my back hurts like he**, anyone who is offended by it has a personal problem. I'm an adult, and I don't need to be protected by software or signs on the back bar. I would like to see really offensive words and phrases such as "six sigma" and "sharing best practices" replaced with asterisks.Actually, most (if not all) forum software I know about perform that service and the fact that it is done automatically should mean that there is no need to look over your shoulder.

Personally I am not easily offended, but we have members from all over the globe here, and have to take our different backgrounds into consideration. Something that will not make you or me bat an eyelid may be offensive to somebody else. Similarly, others will have to accept that they cannot be to thin-skinned here. We simply have to meet halfway, and it usually works out fine.

Ok... Back on track. I believe we were discussing interaction?

/Claes

I don't want to extend this too far off-topic, but I think that I can bring it back into perspective by saying that one of the traits shared by nearly all bad managers is the habit of punishing many for transgressions of the few. Bad managers like to post signs and make rules rather than dealing directly with individuals who are causing problems. I understand that I'm a guest here, and as such I have a choice to not participate if I don't like the rules of participation. This is no more than a minor annoyance to me in this instance and this context, but I am very fearful of blind censorship and of authority figures who want to decide for me what's offensive and what's not.

This is no more than a minor annoyance to me in this instance and this context, but I am very fearful of blind censorship and of authority figures who want to decide for me what's offensive and what's not.Well said, and point well taken. That is where we need the "meet each other half-way" part.

/Claes