by Matt Perman
This is a good article from Harvard Business Review on how the conventional approach to handling recessions is often wrong, and what to do instead. (I apologize that the link is to the pdf — the article doesn’t seem to be available in html.)
I have also blogged on this in my series Managing in a Downturn.
by Matt Perman
Here’s another approach to problem solving: When you have a problem, turn it into a question. Write it down on a document or sheet of paper, and then think through it on paper. Define the problem first, and probe it deeply. Ask “what is the problem?” and then “what else could be the problem?” Then do the same to identify causes, and then solutions.
by Matt Perman
When it comes to solving complex problems where we don’t seem to be making any headway, an approach called “the breakout” can be helpful. I came across this in a Harvard Business Review article a few years ago.
Here’s the summary of the concept: “By bringing the brain to the height of activity and then suddenly moving it into a passive, relaxed state, it’s possible to stimulate much higher neurological performance than would otherwise be the case. Over time, subjects who learn to do this as a matter of course perform at consistently higher levels.”
And here are the key steps:
by Matt Perman
From Peter Drucker’s Management Challenges for the 21st Century:
- Knowledge worker productivity demands that we ask the question: “What is the task?”
- It demands that we impose the responsibility for their productivity on the individual knowledge workers themselves. Knowledge workers have to manage themselves. They have to have autonomy.
- Continuing innovation has to be part of the work, the task and the responsibility of the knowledge workers.
- Knowledge work requires continuous learning on the part of the knowledge worker, but equally continuous teaching on the part of the knowledge worker.
- Productivity of the knowledge worker is not — at least not primarily — a matter of the quantity of output. Quality is at least as important.
- Finally, knowledge-worker productivity requires that the knowledge worker is both seen and treated as an “asset” rather than a “cost.” It requires that knowledge workers want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities.
by Matt Perman
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].
by Matt Perman
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.
by Matt Perman
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.
by Matt Perman
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.
by Matt Perman
Chip and Dan Heath have a good article in Fast Company on what makes messages go viral.
“Making an idea contagious isn’t a mysterious marketing art. It boils down to a couple of simple rules.”
by Matt Perman
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.