What's Best Next

You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for February 2010

Archives for February 2010

The Errors of Scientific Management

by

This is a good, short summary of the main thinking behind scientific management and its core flaws. Scientific management (treating people like robots rather than people) is relevant to us today because it shows exactly how not to treat people. From Treat People Right!: How Organizations and Employees Can Create a Win/Win Relationship to Achieve High Performance at All Levels:

Scientific management called for standardized, specialized, and machine-paced jobs in the name of efficiency and low labor costs. People were expected to add little value beyond their manual labor. Two carrots were used: financial incentives and the threat of being fired. A key assumption was that in return for having a job, people should be willing to act like machines for eight hours a day.

Scientific management has been shown to be highly flawed. Its use in large organizations for decades caused low intrinsic motivation on the part of employees and high rates of turnover and absenteeism, and a strong inclination to solve workplace problems through unionization. Sometimes employees would engage in counterproductive behaviors and even sabotage. Ultimately all of this opened the door to foreign competitors [note what happened to the American automobile manufacturers, beginning back in the 1970s].

Drucker: Do Not Cut Back on Expenditures for Success in Hard Times

by

From Management Challenges for the 21st Century:

The most common, but also the most damaging, practice is to cut back on expenditures for success, especially in poor times, so as to maintain expenditures for ongoing operations, and especially expenditures to maintain the past.

The argument is always: “This product, service or technology is a success anyhow; it doesn’t need to have more money put into it.”

But the right argument is: “This is a success, and therefore should be supported to the maximum possible.” And it should be supported especially in bad times when the competition is likely to cut spending and therefore likely to create an opening.

Management Is:

by

Here’s a thought on one way to describe what management is:

Managing is turning talent into performance in a way that develops the person in the process.

Using Jott and Evernote Together

by

Lifehacker has a good post on how you can use Jott and Evernote together.

Jott is a transcription service. So using the iPhone app, you can use your voice to leave yourself a note, and Jott automatically transcribes it.

These notes need to be processed just like your in box — they are really another in box, in fact. When processing them, the less than two-minute actions should be done right away. Longer than two-minute actions should be put on a list.

But what about the non-actionable stuff you just want to remember? For example, there are a few key things after a meeting that you want to write down for reference, but they aren’t necessarily actionable. That’s where Evernote can be useful. Evernote is basically an electronic notebook, which allows you to group your notes into notebooks, tag them, and sort them by title, date, etc.

The way to use Jott and Evernote together is to email those “reference”-type jotts to your Evernote account. Jott will have already transcribed it, so it saves you that work. Then, once in Evernote, you can title the note, tag it, and put it into the notebook you want. The article shows you how to do this.

The Autocrat vs. the Diplomat

by

From The First-Time Manager:

It is difficult to believe that we still see the old-fashioned autocrat in management today. You have to wonder why this is so. Partly it has to do with the fact that so many managers are given no training. They are left to find their own way, so they begin acting as they think they should. They think in terms of being a “boss.”

Autocrats also believe that if they take the softer approach, employees will take advantage. It is as though the softer approach will be seen as a sign of weakness.

Another possibility is that it takes more time to be a diplomatic manager. These managers spend time with people explaining not only what is to be done but why it’s done. The boss type doesn’t want to be bothered. This person’s attitude is “Do it because I said so.” The diplomat realizes that the more people understand of what and why, the better they perform.

The autocrat wants to make every decision and views the staff as making robotic responses to his or her commands. The autocrat pushes the buttons, the staff snaps to, and it happens. The diplomat knows that the time spent up front, getting everybody involved, pays off with huge dividends down the road.

The autocrat engenders fear while the diplomat builds respect and even affection. The autocrat causes people to mutter under their breath, “Someday, I’ll get even with this SOB.” The diplomat causes people to say, “He respects us and cares for us. I’d walk the last mile for him. All he needs to do is ask.”

The autocrat believes the diplomat is a wimp. The diplomat believes the autocrat is a dictator. The difference is that the autocrat uses authority constantly, while the diplomat is judicious in its display.

People working for the autocrat believe they are working for someone. Those reporting to the diplomat believe they are working with someone.

Do Smart Phones Hurt Productivity?

by

Someone recently argued that they do, and then Derek Johnson responded in the Atlantic that they do not.

It’s an interesting article. I just want to say one thing. The “yes the increase productivity” person notes at a couple points:

I suppose I don’t see how spending more time on email is necessarily unproductive, or even sub-optimally productive. Again, if I’m on the subway listening to Coldplay and staring at the floor, I’m accomplishing nothing of particular use for my company.

I would disagree that staring at the floor, listening to Coldplay (or doing nothing at all) is unproductive. I think that it is the crowding out of this type of time that is the biggest problem.

I wouldn’t say that’s a reason to never check email or Twitter during those in-between-times. But we do take a productivity hit from the lack of in-between thinking time and the mental change of gears it involves.

The Hierarchy of Value

by

Also from Linchpin, Godin illustrates the “hierarchy of value.” It’s done visually in a way that won’t replicate well in the same way here, but the levels are:

  1. Lift
  2. Hunt
  3. Grow
  4. Produce
  5. Sell
  6. Connect
  7. Create/invent

He notes:”Lots of people can lift. That’s not paying off anymore. A few people can sell. Almost no one puts in the work to create or invent. Up to you.”

Mediocrity and the Web

by

From Seth Godin’s latest book, Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?:

The Internet has raised the bar because it’s so easy for word to spread about great stuff. There’s more junk than ever before, more lousy writing, more pointless products. But this abundance of trash is overwhelmed by the market’s ability to distribute news about the great stuff.

Of course, mediocrity isn’t going to go away. Yesterday’s remarkable is today’s really good and tomorrow’s mediocre.

Mediocre is merely a failed attempt to be really good.

Note: Godin isn’t using “really good” in a positive sense in that last line. His point is: don’t go for really good. Go for remarkable.

And so the problem in being mediocre is not that you failed at being really good. It’s that you were aiming at being really good in the first place, instead of aiming at being remarkable.

(Side note: remarkable doesn’t necessarily mean flawless. It means “worth remarking on.” So doing something remarkable is not necessarily to be confused with a perfectionistic quest.)