Comments (0)

I’m teaching myself how to program.  A colleague of mine, who has been programming for decades, comes over and asks me how it’s going.  I try to (naively) show off how much I’ve learned by demonstrating a script I wrote, which abruptly fails as soon as I run it.

“Hmm,” I say, and try to step through the code to see if I can catch what I did wrong.

My colleague immediately start throwing his hands on my screen and telling me I’ve probably made a mistake here, here and/or here.

“I know,” I admit. “That is why I’m trying to figure out where exactly I’ve made it.”

“WHY?” He yells. “Just type these characters after this line right here [hand in front of my face, on the screen]: ‘E’, ‘R’, ‘R’ –”

“Wait a second. Why am I doing this? What am I writing?”

“An error output code! Why would you possibly waste your time looking for the error when the script can just tell you what it is??” He was getting visibly agitated…

“Well,” I try naively to defend myself, “I want to test myself on whether or not I remember the syntax well enough to see the error by myself.”

“That’s stupid.”

“…Well then, I’m stupid.  …Was there something else you needed?”

Being an expert means that you are used to dealing with very complex issues, not silly ones.  That is why experts take all measures to fix those silly issues in as easy a manner as possible (so they can go back to focusing on the big ones).  As a result, they see other people’s focus on those small problems as a total waste of time (as it is, for them).  However, as a novice at something, trying to do things manually is sometimes the best way to learn, and relying on the easy way out is a last resort (for when deadlines are approaching and your solution is not…).

Therefore, experts/experienced professionals, don’t invalidate the learning process of the peons.  You may actually shortchange their progress.  Let us struggle a little bit with it, because if we struggle and come out on top, we’ll know immeasurably more about the problem and the system than had we just taken a cop out.

If you want to help, ask if you can be helpful first.  Some people may feel embarrassed about not understanding something and may not want to admit it or ask for advice (just yet.  If this is carrying on too long, kindly insist on helping).  Those who do will probably proactively approach you.

And, just so you know, just because we don’t (or can’t) do it your way initially, doesn’t mean we’re stupid.

Also, using that word to describe us makes us want to plan your eminent demise… so…

Comments (0)

The real difference between the two is the internal self-image you have of yourself as a manager and how it manifests itself in your behavior towards your team.

Confidence = setting yourself up in the mind of your team as a reference for when any of them have questions or make mistakes; making yourself available but generally not imposing your expertise; having your people want to come to you.

Arrogance = micromanaging your team and intruding your knowledge on them, regardless of whether you were asked to or not; checking up on others and consistently proffering advice; having your team choose struggle and head-banging-against-wall rather than coming to talk to you.

A confident manager feels comfortable in his professional and managerial skills.  It’s a quiet and internal confidence, one which doesn’t require you to flaunt your abilities.  An arrogant manager, on the other hand, feels the need to constantly reiterate his/her skills to others, likely out of insecurity.  The difference in behavior that results from the difference in your self-worth is often compounded by the reaction your team has towards you.  A confident manager gains respect of his team, reinforcing his/her sense of self; an arrogant manager incurs behind-the-back ridicule and frustration, reinforcing his/her insecurity.  Additionally, the team dynamic created by a confident manager is one that promotes reaching out for help whenever necessary—as opposed to prematurely or after having wasted too much time attempting to solve the problem—and therefore creates a more efficient and effective work environment.

Break the vicious cycle.  Get yourself to a place where external affirmation and education is not necessary to your self-image.

Comments (0)

Many managers actually forget the “group” part of “group project” seemingly often.  They pay a lot of lip service to “teamwork” without actually knowing what it means.  Teamwork on a time-set, clear-goaled project is oftentimes quite different than teamwork in an organization at large.

Step#1: Understand what being staffed on a group project is like for a peon?

• It’s a change from your ordinary duties.  Most managers don’t realize the psychological effect of this fact on an employee.  After doing a particular job for an extended period of time, a change of scenery–no matter what that change is–is often a welcome respite from the monotony.  This change of responsibilities, perspectives, etc. has the effect of raising employees’ productivity and motivation to do good work.
• It makes one feel a little special. While it’s not true in some cases, being pulled in on a special project usually an unofficial pat on the back, saying to employees, “we value you and therefore would appreciate your input on this initiative.”  That makes an employee feel pretty damn good from the outset.  However, what it also creates is an expectation that one’s opinions are going to then be heard and appreciated.

Step#2: Run your team project accordingly.

• Keep everyone involved (beyond the brainstorming phase).  What tends to happen is that the group meets up and spends a bunch of time discussing options, strategies, and perspectives.  Then comes the time for action and all of a sudden a only subset of the group (if not just the group leader) is responsible for taking the next steps.  Contrary to popular belief, it’s not enough to just listen to an opinion; you have to let people act on them.  Otherwise, they’ll always just be opinions.  As stated above, people are willing to get work done and considering you picked them (or someone in the know did), those people are generally trustworthy.
• Make sure all members participate in the major decision making and know of external decisions affecting their work before the rest of the company does.  One of the worst feelings of betrayal I’ve had as an employee is when I, with my assigned project group, met with a larger group of employees and managers and witnessed the project leader get up and say that the group had accomplished such-and-such, and that was the first time I, as well as most everyone else in the group, had heard of anything being final.  This partly goes back to my point about not pretending other people have control over decisions when they don’t.  However, it is sometimes embedded in the corporate structure and culture that only project leaders report to higher ups and serve as liaisons.  But, this does not mean that the project leader doesn’t pull the group aside first thing after he hears the news to give them the primary heads up (so that a. they know and b. don’t sit in these types of meetings with deer-in-headlights expressions).  Additionally, by keeping them in the dark like this, you make your group members feel anything but special.
• Allow all group members to take turns presenting and taking credit for group achievements. It’s easy for the project leader to take credit — he is clearly responsible for the actions of the team.  What separates a good leader from a bad one, however, is his ability to share the credit and allow others to bask in its glory.  Allowing each member of the team to be a representative of the group at some point in the group’s life makes each person feel like the team leader, which obviously makes him or her more satisfied with the group experience, regardless of how it turned out practically.

Comments (0)

Fear, to take Shrek’s example, is like an onion.  The fear that you observe in others is just the outer covering and a culmination of much more deep-rooted fears.  People are also not particularly keen on revealing to you their deepest, darkest insecurities.  Therefore, in order to manage (and manage away) fear, you have to strip back the layers to find out what is at the root of a frightened person’s (often irrational) thought process.

The goal is to keep asking questions to figure out the core fear.

Sandra is afraid to put her name in for a promotion or transfer.

You ask, why?

She says it’s because she’s afraid she might not get it, obviously.

You ask what she is afraid will happen if she doesn’t.

She says she’s afraid it will put her current position at risk.

You ask why she thinks it is at risk.

She says she is afraid her boss doesn’t like her and would take the chance to be rid of her.

You ask why she thinks her boss would be that petty.

She says it’s because she’s afraid she hasn’t been working up to his standards.

This conversation can go on and on but what I want to illustrate here is that her fear of applying for a new job doesn’t lie in the fear of not getting that job but in the performance of her current one.  Fear is therefore not what you think it is – it’s usually much deeper.

How deep? Fear of anything external lies in very personal issues and insecurities, which we all have, whether it be commitment issues, lack of self-esteem, performance anxiety.  The goal of talking to a person experiencing any kind of fear is to make them become conscious of what is causing the fear and trying to address that core directly.  In the above example, Sandra’s issue is that she’s not confident in her work product in her current job, which inhibits her from ever progressing.  You need to work with people like Sandra to either a) make her proud of her work or b) get her to improve her work.  If you attack the core, which is likely responsible for multiple other fears, you can not only cure the fear but also prevent fear going forward.

Comments (0)

Dictators are insecure

Larry David, who I’m sure is not hurting for money, drives a Toyota Prius.  Most skinny girls don’t actually wear skin-tight clothing.  Contrary to the popular idiom, when you got it, you don’t feel the need to flaunt it.  It is therefore also true that managers who are confident about their authority do not feel the need to viciously and continuously remind you of it.  Dictators are just insecure about their leadership and their command of your respect.  Therefore, another way to cool a dictator is to stroke his or her ego (regardless of how distasteful that may seem to you).  If you complement your dictator’s handling of the last meeting (sincerely) or support his proposal, he will cool down.  He will assume you already appreciate him and his awesomeness and he no longer needs to put the fear of G-d in you to achieve those results.

Dictators don’t trust people

If you look closely, you will probably notice that your dictator is not exactly a people person.  The command and control mechanism comes about because of a dictator’s innate distrust of other people.  The lack of trust can stem from a variety of reasons, which a psychologist would better be able to identify, but all are equally damaging to his leadership style.  The way to deal with this is to purposely work on gaining the dictator’s trust.  Go above and beyond her requirements for projects, anticipate her needs, and support her when you notice her getting ragged on.  Becoming an ally and a friend of the dictator may seem repulsive and fake, but it’s important to train yourself to believe—truly believe—that each person is interesting and worth knowing, including your dictator, if you are to ever succeed in the business world.  I say that because fakeness is the worst tactic.  You can’t butter up to a dictator—she’s way too smart for that and will see right through you.  Find commonalities to start relating to her instead.