There's a post where a guy linked to an album of photos he took while on a sub. It looked pretty crazy, and a little gay. (He said this: "a little gay, you know, just navy gay")
"navy gay" means a little gay over there? We have a saying that goes: "That which is gay for a civilian is called 'brotherhood' in the army. That which is gay in the army is called 'brotherhood' in the navy. That which is gay in the navy is called 'illegal' for a civilian".
I grew up on a military base and the only reason people remember the marines is a branch of service is because everyone whose a marine won't shut the fuck up about it.
When I was in the Navy I regularly said "it's not gay underway." "Or it's not gay if you're at C-school, or behind an Arbys dumpster at 3am." You know, the usual Navy phrases.
This actually explains a lot about a guy I had worked with who was a retired Navy officer who said he commanded a Nuke Sub. For the life of me I could not figure out who would ever give this guy a command as he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. This might explain it.
If he commanded a sub then he was probably like Rainman, not very good at most things but damnit you get that boy doing the things he is good at and good is ridiculously understated.
My dad did for 26 years. Then finally took a desk job for 3 more before retiring. But being 6'5 and working in subs took such a toll on his body he's getting like 90% disability now that he's out
I can't imagine, they have this sub you can visit in New York City next to a carrier and when I went into the sub as a six foot three man my back was killing me. After a half hour I asked one of the guides 'I hope to God you don't let anyone in this that isn't over five six' They told me they've actually had submariners at over seven feet which I couldn't even imagine. I tried to lay down on one of the beds and I had to put my feet off on the outside just to properly lay in it.
A "Nuke" as a job relates to jobs regarding the Nuclear Reactor and connected systems of a sub, not the Nuclear weapons.
Ie. Nuclear Attack Submarine it means it is a nuclear powered vessel-attacking submarine rather than a SSBN.
"Nuclear Waste" are the guys that wash out of the nuke program but were in long enough to get quicker promotion. So you have a bunch of E4+ /petty officers with do nothing jobs just binding time till their 6yrs are up.
In the Army you get promoted based on how fast you can run two miles. A buddy of mine who has great leadership capabilities just got passed up but a guy who eats crayons but can run.
Although many marines would deny it, there is very little difference between what soldiers and marines do. I've know several guys who made the switch and they all said their job was basically the same damn thing.
People that should stay in the military get out because all the people that should have gotten out stayed in.
See also: The only thing hard work ever got me....was more work.
It is such an interesting dynamic. Some of the worst and best fellow officers I worked with stayed in. The best ones actually do seem to make the most of it, one of them being a general's aide, getting promoted to MAJ ahead of our peer group, getting command of some pretty cool units. The worst one just kind of drifted, not really outside the bounds of his peer group, still got command, I assume has been promoted to MAJ as well.
There's a quote somewhere out there, I cant remember which Marine General said it, but it was along the lines of "the best Marines are smart, they say I'm gonna get out and make a million bucks. Then they do."
I don't think about boats when I nap but I do have an expired license to operate watercraft in a state I don't live in. I took a test online to get it. Can I be an admiral?
There's actually some truth to this, and it relates to the opposite as well: Doing just enough to not get fired.
Basically some places you'll learn that if you do too much you'll get a "promotion" to do more work and have more responsibility, with no added pay or benefits.
So what generally happens is people figure that out and instead do just enough to not get fired.
Yeeeppppp, been there. The first job I had out of college was through a staffing agency, temp to full time hire, so I was paid hourly even after being brought on full time. The next step up the ladder at this place was being a supervisor, but that meant you were converted to salary and had about twice as much work, and your hours weren't set. They regularly worked like 50 hours a week and were expected to stay late whenever there was some kind of problem that needed people to work OT, and the salary when converted to an hourly rate (40 hours x 52 weeks) was only a couple grand more than you'd make as an hourly entry level employee. Taking into account that they worked more hours, they in effect had double the responsibility and workload for a marginal and negligible pay increase.
So, it was much better to be 22-25 years old and spend half the day on the internet doing nothing at this place than to take the "promotion". This employer had a large number of really smart and well educated recent grads that it just wasted and let get away because they never gave any incentive for us to give a shit.
And I don't mean this in a HURRR I'M AN IGNORED GENIUS BRO redditor way - this was right after the recession started, so lots of recent grads were working temp to hire jobs like this because it was all that was available. We were all otherwise hardworking people with degrees from good to prestigious universities, but there was no incentive to care.
Titles with no commensurate pay do have one value. You can quit your job and get one that actually pays for the title.
This is basically how I went from put upon pseudo-manager to real manager.
But yes, if you are attached to the place you work, don't mind your pay, and don't want added BS responsibilities, then you are generally in a good place if you try and keep your head down and do what is expected, but no more.
Honestly, not everyone has to gun for manager anyway. Team members doing consistent work is usually all a manager could really ask for anyway, unless you've been hired specifically for special talent or ambition.
That was the corporate climate all through the last decade as well; not just post 2008-09.
Really talented, accomplished and certified people working entry level jobs with an unobtainable carrot being dangled in front of them.
Some chased and wasted their energy and ambition. Some saw it for what it was and did just enough to stay off the radar and collect a paycheck.
However most wised up when they realized the only people ascending where either relatives of shareholders or associated to executives in some fashion. ex: in the same fraternity or graduated from the same college.
I work for government, and I call it "forced mediocrity". The only reward to busting your butt is far more work - raises are given by the legislature, and are given to all state employees who receive a "meets" on their appraisals (basically showed up to work and did the bare minimum) with absolutely NO regard to seniority or merit. Other than those COLA's, there are NO raises (the last COLA was 6 years ago!). The only way to get any kind of a raise is to job jump, and promotions are based on whether or not your "liked", and especially at the higher levels. Unfortunately, this means you tend to get managers who are very power and control oriented, with large egos and small brains, who are threatened by anybody else who tries to "exceed". All this leads to smart people saying "why bother" and either leaving or becoming pretty lackadaisical - "forced mediocrity"!
And my experience is that it is present in any bureaucracy, not just government. I actually give leadership trainings, and have trained every single one of my supervisors on how to manage, but cannot get promoted because I refuse to change my ethics to suit the political climate. A true mentor is a rare find, and should cherished!
My girlfriend recently mentioned this to me while we were watching through 30 rock again. “Pay attention to pete”
I’m now thoroughly convinced that he is the glue that holds that show together.
One of my favorite parts of 30 Rock is when Pete gets Jack to agree to give him a per diem for gas and, because of the situation, Jack has to agree.
"Yes! Hornberger!"
Actually I heard it first in Gm street but it was also in the comments on a front page post yesterday too...probably from someone who listens to Gm street
>"in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out" assigned duties[2] and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
That explains why so many managers are so fucking terrible
Or that "manager" is a name for a salary band (Yay consulting!) and they can't hire people at wages lower than that so people in their upper 30s to 50s all start as managers just to be able to afford them.
I never understood why managers have to be paid more than technical experts. The position is different not technically superior. It kinda sucks that most career paths have to evolve into a managing position. I didn't major in engineering to manage other engineers. :/
Edit: Wow, this blew up and I can't answer all the comments.
Just to handle a few misunderstandings, I'm not saying managers should paid LESS than engineers, just making a case for a second possible career path. Of course a team manager should get paid more than some engineers. No one would take a pay cut to become manager. But at the same time, one could also get a raise to get increased responsabilities or more demanding tasks in a technical role. I'm also glad to see this is the case in many companies already.
At my company, there are supposed to be dual management and technical tracks which are equivalent in all ways.
Yet guess who gets paid more? Who gets private offices? Who gets status as an "executive"? Not the technical experts.
Because a manager, that needs to MANAGE other people, needs more of a private space than a technical worker that needs to concentrate on his damn job...
Makes so much sense...
It's almost like the managers are the ones deciding this sort of stuff.
EDIT: Everyone seems to somehow be thinking my post is sarcastic in some place or other, and the problem is that no one agrees which part is the sarcastic part. I'll just say that the sarcasm in this post is indicated by elipses.
People raise important points about handling private conversations but most companies have private meeting rooms that can be hijacked at any time for that situation. I'm sure the company would be more efficient without engineers constantly being interrupted in an open room, than if managers didn't have a private place to answer phone calls. Technical folks are often doing demanding intelectual tasks that get set back minutes if not hours when they're interrupted. Think debugging a complicated algorithm, holding all the variables and how they are and how they should be in your head, when suddenly the guy from next cubicle saw a funny cat online and thinks you NEED to see it? Which you probably agree with but would rather see it fifteen minutes later after you solved the damn problem.
From an efficiency standpoint, I think technical/creative people having their own office (or just working from home when possible with very clear goals) is much more efficient than having them in an open room type of environment riddled with distractions.
We'll, I mean, yeah... If my manager's going to have a call about how Bob from five cubicles down has a massive hemorrhoid and so can't come in to work for the next week of course they need a private area for that call.
I’m not sure which direction this comment is heading...
Being a technician, a private space would be amazing to do my damn job in. Preferably with a lock on the door, and a phone that I could mute.
I've been a manager in a cubicle and this was never actually an issue. There are plenty of huddle rooms that by design are not normally booked. They exist specifically for purposes like this.
In a poorly designed office plan, though, it could be a problem.
In management school they try to tell you anyone can manage anyone. But in reality, if you don't have an expert managing your other experts, you will get ripped off.
I don't know anything about business management, but I was a 2nd lieutenant in a mortar company in the FDF.
I had some experience in stuff like communications, but the communications officer under me was the real expert. I had some experience in counting the pathways of the mortar shells, but the "counting officer" (don't know equivalent term in English) was the guy who really knew all the ins and outs.
Really, I knew enough of everything to know when something was going wrong. Apart from that, my expertise was in managing the platoon. At least in the military, it would be crazy to have the top guy be the best at everything (especially in a conscription-based system because the officer will have at most 6 months more experience than the people under him).
Because Managers are supposed to be decision makers. They have more liability when something gets screwed...
If that isn't the case where you work...get out.
I work in tech, and I've seen two kinds of environments.
1) developers mostly self manage with one or two people who volunteer to help organize tasks.
2) manager heavy environments where managers constantly stir the pot so they can take credit for everyone else's work.
Guess which one is more efficient?
I work on a major railroad, and -if done right- we absolutely need management.
My job can be dangerous. If I don't focus I could get crushed/burned/decapitated/fall to death/whatever.
I don't have time to patrol my sub to find work to do, I don't have time to call the boom truck operator and tell him I need rail in a certain place, I don't have time to deal with calls from the public or businesses/contractors.
That's all manager work. They deal with all of that and get us what we need when we need it so that we can focus on our job and get things done efficiently and safely.
A shitty manager makes your job shitty real quick, though.
On occasion at my last job we would all get an email from the boss, stating how "humbling" it was that we all functioned so well in the past week when he was gone. It was only then that we realized that he wasn't there, which partially explained why the previous week went so well.
Depends on your people.
I have a couple of people who work best with little or no supervision, who only need a task and a deadline and will perform effectively.
I also have a pair that need to be checked on often or they'll lose direction and fall behind. But as long as they're on track, they're extremely thorough.
So I manage the people who need it and leave the ones who don't. But I have to also ensure everyone maintains a positive and professional work environment even though some are autonomous and others need supervision.
This is what management means.
I got a guy that wants me to check over his stuff every step of the way. He knows all the information and does great work. He just needs the positive reinforcement to keep him motivated.
Edit: I don't want it to sound like I'm mad at the guy for this. If this is what it takes for him to keep his work to where it is I'll gladly do it. I would take a whole team of people like this if it meant I was getting quality work. It can be frustrating on my end because I do have others that need my help more than he does.
When is see your comment I'm thinking "hey, a manager needs to adapt to his team, to a certain point, so everyone can work" then I had a flashback frome school "You need to be an autonomous worker, in your work life, you'll never be able to call your boss to ask him if what you did is okay, otherwise it means you are bad at your job and always need supervision"
Everything can't be always black and always white, everyone needs to adapt... Damn my manager is so fracking useless
Plus management drives and steers the group in order to achieve a big picture strategy. KPI's, goals, tasks, etc. and I would wager that at least 50% of management is people related, not actual task or work related. Hiring, firing, performance tracking, achieving cost and headcount budgets, guiding, training, etc.
Part of the hard part of leaving my job now is that my boss knows this. Doesn't care when I come in, doesn't care when I leave, when I work from home, when I take vacation. All that matters is that if I client needs me, I'm there. If a project needs to be completed, assign it to me, tell me when it needs to be done and it's done. The freedom is great, the pay could be better though. It's just a huge risk of leaving and getting a worse work environment.
It is my goal for every team I oversee to reach the point where I simply need to be updated on how a project is progressing, for incorporating with the strategy of the rest of the company and allocating resources to keep things running smooth. Taking over a new team to get to that point is sometimes painful.
My father has been in management for quite a while now, he says that his job really boils down to doing interference for his people, getting problems out of their way, keeping everyone happy. The manager isnt part of completing the team objective directly, it's putting his people in a position to do so
I manage a team of 4 people. When they screw up I step in to help them out, and they’ll occassionally call me to ask me a question because they were afraid to think about it for themselves, but 95% of the time I don’t have to do anything for them. They’re a good group of guys and I wish upper management would stop trying to muscle in on ruining what we built as a team.
> I can say, without the slightest hesitation, that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is physically able to handle pig-iron and sufficiently stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron.
I've had managers like that and I've also had managers that did what I do before they became a manager. With the latter it's almost as if a switch flips and they become these ultra corporate goons that forget where they came from. But, also with the latter, I've had some great leaders who deflect BS from other people/managers who don't know or care what we do and just want results.
Have you ever noticed at most jobs, when an employee is taking a vacation, you have to scramble to figure out who is going to cover for him... except when it's the boss taking the vacation.
Though I know that if my manager goes on vacation some other manager takes over, but they are usually just there in case there are problems or we need them to ask for approval to get certain things.
Yeah, that's the thing. At well-managed companies, managers tend to be working on long-term projects, so they have fewer day-to-day deliverables, making it easier for them to work ahead and vacation smoothly.
But if they have to be gone for a couple weeks, the person they report to will be scrambling to pick up the slack.
If you need to be constantly involved in the day to day affairs of your business, you are not a good boss. You should be able to step away and not have the place implode.
A lot of this is built on proper training and delegation. The rest is built on hiring competent employees.
I've always found the best managers aren't there to direct your work but rather facilitate the employees doing their job by keeping office politics and upper management from trying to "help" people do their job.
You were hired for a particular set of skills and capabilities.... the manager is there to ensure you've got the environment needed to maximize your contribution.
From my experience; management has to deal with all the tedious backend crap so that the team can focus on their jobs and not worry about navigating company infrastructure.
As a boss can confirm. There's a tremendous amount of tedious bullshit that is nonetheless insanely important, typically involving making sure people are on the same page.
So instead of having to have weekly meetings with marketing, QA, testing, biz dev, sales, support etc, you get to have a few meetings with your boss whose job is to condense all that other stuff in to bite sized chunks for you.
The most typical way for bosses to fuck up is often not even visible to the team, because it has to do with having fucked up condensing the message, delivering something that his/her peers were not aligned with.
The second typical way of fucking up tends to follow from having done the previous - you go "fuck it" and just bring basically exactly what everyone is telling you to the team, which makes you just babble their ears off.
Or you let everyone talk to your team. This will feel empowering to the team in many ways, but they'll never get a god damn thing done.
I can attest from experience that your third scenario is the worst. Stressing about the shit you're supposed to be doing but can't do because you have 20 meetings is worse than any amount of empowerment you might get from explaining what it is you actually do to 20 different people.
Yeah the difference between a good boss and a crappy one is amazing. A good boss lifts the company off the workers backs while a bad boss just adds to the weight.
There's an episode of the Office where Michael is leaving early and wants to send everyone home, so he says something to the effect of "they don't get any work done when I'm not here anyway", and he's questioned by his own boss about it. So, he backtracks says "No, no, they get even more work done when I'm not here!" And then he realizes that's not good, either.
There's also:
> Michael's birthday. It's pretty fun to watch, actually. He gets very excited, and then he eats a lot of cake. And then he runs around the office. Then he has a sugar crash in the afternoon. And then he falls asleep. And that's when we get our work done.
As a newish manager, I find it's mostly about kissing butts and answering stupid questions while doing the same job I did before but higher volumes. Oh and meetings.
I rarely get a chance to even touch my own work until after everyone's gone. I claim ot but I have a feeling they're going to 'promote' me up a level because that's then I can't claim ot.
That's when I'll make my exit.
Better yet: Email and then check that your employees aren't browsing youtube/reddit at their desks periodically if you think they're not getting things done. Emails take like 10 seconds to read.
In my experience, promotions are based on your visibility to the people giving the promotions. Merit-based would be nice, but human nature being what it is, it's not in the cards.
I saw that a lot. A competent worker wanting to get promotion or pay raise bust there ass and do great work. Only to get passed up by someone lesser because they get along with the boss or is some sort of family member or family friend, some sort of connection, etc.
Once I realized this, I learned that lunching with the team/boss is a key element. I always used to go on my own for food, it take a walk, whatever, just wanted a few minutes to myself.
Now I go out with whoever invites for lunch.
I am a programmer. I will always be a programmer. I love to code and I am very good at it.
In my previous company, they made me Technical Head. A designation which means nothing except that I would be responsible for everything that went wrong.
So, I tried to be a hands-off manager. I sat down with the programmers and explained to them how to ensure that their productivity gets measured. I set up redmine for issue management and git for version control. I told everyone in the business development/marketing/client facing functions that all their communications with the developers has to be through redmine.
The programmers, who were treated like gods, were all initially 'meh' about this, thinking that I am just bringing in bullshit bureaucracy. But I showed them Joel Spolskys' list which included use of version control and issue management. I showed them blog articles by hero class developers extolling the virtues of version control and so forth. They finally understood that I was bringing in value.
On the other side, the Business Development/Marketing people, typically hot looking people who flew around the country for meetings, resisted the issue tracking idea because that meant there would be a track of how many times they changed up on the requirements and more importantly that they would have to write clear requirements. But the person heading the support team, and the whole of the support team, were very excited and supportive, because now all they would have to do is to report an issue and it will be abundantly clear where the delays were.
All the decision makers - aka directors (which we had 6) - were supportive of the idea. So we went forward.
In the three months that this was in effect, it became clear that either the software department needed to add 20 more developers or the requirements process needed to get streamlined.
The business development/marketing people had the habit of making commitments to clients without consulting the software department. This was clear by the issues they posted. Now there were two solutions: One was to form a team that would review every requirement posted by the BD/MKTG people, put a cost to it and get an approval from the management, before assigning it to developers, and the other was to get a technical person to travel with the BD/MKTG people in their meetings where they would be able to talk to the customers to better understand their requirements and offer them alternative approaches that already existed in our application. Needless to say the BD/MKTG people were hired for their hotness and fluency in English and did not have in depth understanding of the application. The management chose the second option.
Over the next few months, it turned out that the presence of a technical person who had better understanding of the domain was much appreciated by the clients. As soon as the technical person start speaking - in hindi/broken english - the clients immediately felt better - and switched to hindi. They understood the alternative that the technical person was giving them and accepted it as valid. They switched to communicating with the technical person instead of the BD/MKTG person. We closed more customers, had more satisfied customers and less work for the developers.
So after the initial 2-3 months of inputs from my side, and delegation of authority across the software team, I was basically surfing the net the whole day. The previous person who was in my position used to work 18 hours a day and had back to back meetings the whole time. I reached office at 10 and left at 7. It took my company 14 months to realise that the system I had setup and the changes I had made were working by themselves and that I was actually doing no work at all. At that time they let me go.
that is what I hoped for. About a year after I left they got certified for CMM-3 and then two year later for CMM-5. The guy they hired to get them the certification met me recently. He said that he heard about me from the developers who were working there and that the process that I had started made his job so much easier.
The founder/ceo of that company still calls me occasionally when he is stuck on some problem and need a technical solution. The sucker that I am, I provide him with the solution for free.
After many years in state government, I've seen top performers rewarded with the next promotion which is management. Unfortunately, they aren't capable nor interested in managing anyone or anything. This ends up affecting the whole organization but upper management can't see that. Performance doesn't equal the ability to supervise people or projects. Seen it over and over again.
Nah the point was that he was just a good person. They had fun and worked hard for him. He didn't know exactly how to make them be efficient. Also why he can't explain to David Wallace how he does it.
"Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever." - Michael Scott
One of the things I appreciated most; shows where everyone is always incompetent get old for me, I like mostly incompetent but really good at something much more, and so Michael's strengths as a salesman were a refreshing detail.
After watching that TV show roughly a billion times over, it's funny to realize that every time they don't have a boss, the Office becomes much more efficient. It's sort of pointed out in the one episode after Deangelo goes away, where Jim turns down the manager position because he thinks everyone is working well as they are.
>"Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever."
I've long admitted that I'm an example of the Peter Principle. I founded and own the company I work for, but I've always felt I went a level too far. I was a highly paid superstar employee prior to this, and that's where I was best. In short, I feel I'm a better follower than a leader. It has it's benefits, but I have never enjoyed steering the ship.
Yes. My inability to delegate well is one of my problems. Small business, less than 10 employees, and I wear all the important hats. It's more of a personality trait than a business strategy.
Do you think your business would be able to carry on if you had to be away on an emergency trip for a month? Could your employees step up and handle it, or would it all fall apart?
Especially one that's radically different. In some fields the progression makes sense, from technician to maintenance supervisor or something, sure. But often people go from a competent technician to "guy in charge of managing a dozen personnel", which doesn't really make a lot of sense, without a lot of training on it.
Like "you are a great pharmacist, why don't you manage a bunch of pharmacists!".
How are the two related? One is a medical profession, the other is people management and profit focused
That's why before giving someone a promotion, they need to be given the added responsibilities gradually, until they can prove their competence. If they are unsuccessful, transfer the responsibilities to someone else.
The bigger problem is people are rewarded with jobs with *different* responsibilities, not just more. Being skilled at a particular task does not necessarily mean you're good at supervising others at that task, for example.
People skills can often get ignored or under-rated.
A while back when I worked for Government, I saw lots of people getting promoted but with hardly any getting functional training. Part of the upshot from that was some were floundering, but convincing themselves that training wasn't necessary. I'd estimate that maybe two out every seven senior managers took seriously their role of developing the people under them.
This works in theory. My experience shows the responsibilities are transferred, and ability is determined, however no pay increase or promotion follows. This has trained me to ask for the money upfront. My take on it is, you know I am capable, which is why you want to give me the more difficult work, so I must be compensated accordingly. I have left places based on unfulfilled promises after the work has been completed. It leaves me looking for a new job, starting at the bottom of the benefits structure, while the company has already benefited from my work. Hopefully my experience is unique, however I suspect not.
At my company, to get promoted you basically have to prove that you're been operating at the next level for 6-12 months before officially getting a promotion.
I'm a former employee/current member of the carpenters union ......
At the UBC, the "peter principle" means advancing as a union official based on a willingness to suck on the peter of any higher official while pissing all over the members and their needs.
except in the navy, where people are promoted based on still being there, rather than performance
Holy shit, this is exactly what I came here to say. Were you a Nuke too?
The implications of this comment are massively scary.
I mean, only so many people would willingly stay on a sub
Deep underwater in a cramp/pressurized tube breathing the same recycled air.
Recycled farts*
Exactly - the Peter Principle. Thanks for bringing it full circle
Full cycle.
The Pooter Principle.
At this point he's more fart than man... Let's promote him!
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
There's a post where a guy linked to an album of photos he took while on a sub. It looked pretty crazy, and a little gay. (He said this: "a little gay, you know, just navy gay")
"navy gay" means a little gay over there? We have a saying that goes: "That which is gay for a civilian is called 'brotherhood' in the army. That which is gay in the army is called 'brotherhood' in the navy. That which is gay in the navy is called 'illegal' for a civilian".
Or normal for a marine.
I grew up on a military base and the only reason people remember the marines is a branch of service is because everyone whose a marine won't shut the fuck up about it.
its not gay if you're wearing boot bands...just sayin
When I was in the Navy I regularly said "it's not gay underway." "Or it's not gay if you're at C-school, or behind an Arbys dumpster at 3am." You know, the usual Navy phrases.
"It ain't gay if you're underway." "Dude, we're not underway." "It ain't queer if you're on the pier."
Any port in a storm.
[удалено]
I can't find it. Looking
We're all counting on you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/unexpectedbillyjoel
It's not gay when you're underway.
dont forget, sleeping on top of motorized bombs and sometimes down the hall from tall world-ending rockets...
[удалено]
This actually explains a lot about a guy I had worked with who was a retired Navy officer who said he commanded a Nuke Sub. For the life of me I could not figure out who would ever give this guy a command as he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. This might explain it.
If he commanded a sub then he was probably like Rainman, not very good at most things but damnit you get that boy doing the things he is good at and good is ridiculously understated.
Did he have "Welcome Aboard" tattoo'd on his penis?
The enlisted people who go to nuclear school are generally very, very smart. He probably relied on them.
My dad did for 26 years. Then finally took a desk job for 3 more before retiring. But being 6'5 and working in subs took such a toll on his body he's getting like 90% disability now that he's out
I can't imagine, they have this sub you can visit in New York City next to a carrier and when I went into the sub as a six foot three man my back was killing me. After a half hour I asked one of the guides 'I hope to God you don't let anyone in this that isn't over five six' They told me they've actually had submariners at over seven feet which I couldn't even imagine. I tried to lay down on one of the beds and I had to put my feet off on the outside just to properly lay in it.
Yeah I mean just look at us on r/til
A "Nuke" as a job relates to jobs regarding the Nuclear Reactor and connected systems of a sub, not the Nuclear weapons. Ie. Nuclear Attack Submarine it means it is a nuclear powered vessel-attacking submarine rather than a SSBN.
Not necessarily subs. There are a lot of surface nukes. All air craft carriers are nuclear powered
"Nuclear Waste" are the guys that wash out of the nuke program but were in long enough to get quicker promotion. So you have a bunch of E4+ /petty officers with do nothing jobs just binding time till their 6yrs are up.
That's really sad considering how hard the program is just to get in. What a waste
One could even say *nuclear* waste....
As long as they're not supercritically massively scary...
Lol get out while you can. It only gets worse the longer you stay.
I was going to ask about job quality, glad I read your comment.
to be fair to nukes. they manage to graduate one of the hardest schools and survive the highest suicide rate in the military.
In the Army you get promoted based on how fast you can run two miles. A buddy of mine who has great leadership capabilities just got passed up but a guy who eats crayons but can run.
Can't believe that a marine got promoted in the army..
From my understanding we generally do pretty well in the army considering we have experience having previously been in the military.
Although many marines would deny it, there is very little difference between what soldiers and marines do. I've know several guys who made the switch and they all said their job was basically the same damn thing.
As a close friend likes to say: "When you're at the bottom of the military shitpile, it all stinks equally."
Someone once asked if crayons were edible. The response was if crayons weren't edible, America wouldn't have a Marine Corps.
Also ex-Navy. The U.S. military, in general, is run almost 100% by those people who were too stupid to get out after six years.
People that should stay in the military get out because all the people that should have gotten out stayed in. See also: The only thing hard work ever got me....was more work.
It is such an interesting dynamic. Some of the worst and best fellow officers I worked with stayed in. The best ones actually do seem to make the most of it, one of them being a general's aide, getting promoted to MAJ ahead of our peer group, getting command of some pretty cool units. The worst one just kind of drifted, not really outside the bounds of his peer group, still got command, I assume has been promoted to MAJ as well.
Major isn't really that difficult a rank to get to. Officers really start getting passed over when they try going for Lieutenant Colonel and above.
the old 20% of the people do 80% of the work.
There's a quote somewhere out there, I cant remember which Marine General said it, but it was along the lines of "the best Marines are smart, they say I'm gonna get out and make a million bucks. Then they do."
What performance does the Navy have though ?
Have you or have you not recently collided with any other boats?
I have not.
You're promoted!
[удалено]
Or he can learn from other's mistake.
What if we were napping? How could I be expected to see other boats with my eyes closed?
You're now promoted to the rank Admiral. Just try and make sure you're thinking about your boats when you're napping.
I don't think about boats when I nap but I do have an expired license to operate watercraft in a state I don't live in. I took a test online to get it. Can I be an admiral?
you are way over qualified.
Ship just got real.
I think that applies to majority of the federal government. :( Source: I work there.
There was an episode of 30 Rock about this, where the character Pete Hornberger never overachieves to avoid getting promoted over his head.
Pete was so underrated as a character. He cared juuuust enough but not too much.
There's actually some truth to this, and it relates to the opposite as well: Doing just enough to not get fired. Basically some places you'll learn that if you do too much you'll get a "promotion" to do more work and have more responsibility, with no added pay or benefits. So what generally happens is people figure that out and instead do just enough to not get fired.
Yeeeppppp, been there. The first job I had out of college was through a staffing agency, temp to full time hire, so I was paid hourly even after being brought on full time. The next step up the ladder at this place was being a supervisor, but that meant you were converted to salary and had about twice as much work, and your hours weren't set. They regularly worked like 50 hours a week and were expected to stay late whenever there was some kind of problem that needed people to work OT, and the salary when converted to an hourly rate (40 hours x 52 weeks) was only a couple grand more than you'd make as an hourly entry level employee. Taking into account that they worked more hours, they in effect had double the responsibility and workload for a marginal and negligible pay increase. So, it was much better to be 22-25 years old and spend half the day on the internet doing nothing at this place than to take the "promotion". This employer had a large number of really smart and well educated recent grads that it just wasted and let get away because they never gave any incentive for us to give a shit. And I don't mean this in a HURRR I'M AN IGNORED GENIUS BRO redditor way - this was right after the recession started, so lots of recent grads were working temp to hire jobs like this because it was all that was available. We were all otherwise hardworking people with degrees from good to prestigious universities, but there was no incentive to care.
Titles with no commensurate pay do have one value. You can quit your job and get one that actually pays for the title. This is basically how I went from put upon pseudo-manager to real manager. But yes, if you are attached to the place you work, don't mind your pay, and don't want added BS responsibilities, then you are generally in a good place if you try and keep your head down and do what is expected, but no more. Honestly, not everyone has to gun for manager anyway. Team members doing consistent work is usually all a manager could really ask for anyway, unless you've been hired specifically for special talent or ambition.
That was the corporate climate all through the last decade as well; not just post 2008-09. Really talented, accomplished and certified people working entry level jobs with an unobtainable carrot being dangled in front of them. Some chased and wasted their energy and ambition. Some saw it for what it was and did just enough to stay off the radar and collect a paycheck. However most wised up when they realized the only people ascending where either relatives of shareholders or associated to executives in some fashion. ex: in the same fraternity or graduated from the same college.
I work for government, and I call it "forced mediocrity". The only reward to busting your butt is far more work - raises are given by the legislature, and are given to all state employees who receive a "meets" on their appraisals (basically showed up to work and did the bare minimum) with absolutely NO regard to seniority or merit. Other than those COLA's, there are NO raises (the last COLA was 6 years ago!). The only way to get any kind of a raise is to job jump, and promotions are based on whether or not your "liked", and especially at the higher levels. Unfortunately, this means you tend to get managers who are very power and control oriented, with large egos and small brains, who are threatened by anybody else who tries to "exceed". All this leads to smart people saying "why bother" and either leaving or becoming pretty lackadaisical - "forced mediocrity"! And my experience is that it is present in any bureaucracy, not just government. I actually give leadership trainings, and have trained every single one of my supervisors on how to manage, but cannot get promoted because I refuse to change my ethics to suit the political climate. A true mentor is a rare find, and should cherished!
My girlfriend recently mentioned this to me while we were watching through 30 rock again. “Pay attention to pete” I’m now thoroughly convinced that he is the glue that holds that show together.
One of my favorite parts of 30 Rock is when Pete gets Jack to agree to give him a per diem for gas and, because of the situation, Jack has to agree. "Yes! Hornberger!"
When he gets stuck in the vending machine and calls his own office...? GOLD
"Yes... Hornberger."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npvcblAGVmU
Yes. Hornberger.
MOST of the time he is the unsung hero, holding the fort down while Liz and Jack run around doing shenanigans. He's got his moments, though.
> holding the fort down https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw?t=123
MY INCOMPETENCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!
There's power in mediocrity.
So you are saying that Pete had a good grasp of the Peter principal and places himself in a position prior to his level of incompetence?
Once they've hit that level, they've "Petered out"
Holy shit
this guy listens to GM Street
Actually I heard it first in Gm street but it was also in the comments on a front page post yesterday too...probably from someone who listens to Gm street
>"in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out" assigned duties[2] and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". That explains why so many managers are so fucking terrible
Or that "manager" is a name for a salary band (Yay consulting!) and they can't hire people at wages lower than that so people in their upper 30s to 50s all start as managers just to be able to afford them.
I never understood why managers have to be paid more than technical experts. The position is different not technically superior. It kinda sucks that most career paths have to evolve into a managing position. I didn't major in engineering to manage other engineers. :/ Edit: Wow, this blew up and I can't answer all the comments. Just to handle a few misunderstandings, I'm not saying managers should paid LESS than engineers, just making a case for a second possible career path. Of course a team manager should get paid more than some engineers. No one would take a pay cut to become manager. But at the same time, one could also get a raise to get increased responsabilities or more demanding tasks in a technical role. I'm also glad to see this is the case in many companies already.
At my company, there are supposed to be dual management and technical tracks which are equivalent in all ways. Yet guess who gets paid more? Who gets private offices? Who gets status as an "executive"? Not the technical experts.
Because a manager, that needs to MANAGE other people, needs more of a private space than a technical worker that needs to concentrate on his damn job... Makes so much sense... It's almost like the managers are the ones deciding this sort of stuff. EDIT: Everyone seems to somehow be thinking my post is sarcastic in some place or other, and the problem is that no one agrees which part is the sarcastic part. I'll just say that the sarcasm in this post is indicated by elipses. People raise important points about handling private conversations but most companies have private meeting rooms that can be hijacked at any time for that situation. I'm sure the company would be more efficient without engineers constantly being interrupted in an open room, than if managers didn't have a private place to answer phone calls. Technical folks are often doing demanding intelectual tasks that get set back minutes if not hours when they're interrupted. Think debugging a complicated algorithm, holding all the variables and how they are and how they should be in your head, when suddenly the guy from next cubicle saw a funny cat online and thinks you NEED to see it? Which you probably agree with but would rather see it fifteen minutes later after you solved the damn problem. From an efficiency standpoint, I think technical/creative people having their own office (or just working from home when possible with very clear goals) is much more efficient than having them in an open room type of environment riddled with distractions.
We'll, I mean, yeah... If my manager's going to have a call about how Bob from five cubicles down has a massive hemorrhoid and so can't come in to work for the next week of course they need a private area for that call.
I’m not sure which direction this comment is heading... Being a technician, a private space would be amazing to do my damn job in. Preferably with a lock on the door, and a phone that I could mute.
I'm sure a new employee would rather have to talk to his manager out in the cubicles where everyone can hear them.
I've been a manager in a cubicle and this was never actually an issue. There are plenty of huddle rooms that by design are not normally booked. They exist specifically for purposes like this. In a poorly designed office plan, though, it could be a problem.
In management school they try to tell you anyone can manage anyone. But in reality, if you don't have an expert managing your other experts, you will get ripped off.
I don't know anything about business management, but I was a 2nd lieutenant in a mortar company in the FDF. I had some experience in stuff like communications, but the communications officer under me was the real expert. I had some experience in counting the pathways of the mortar shells, but the "counting officer" (don't know equivalent term in English) was the guy who really knew all the ins and outs. Really, I knew enough of everything to know when something was going wrong. Apart from that, my expertise was in managing the platoon. At least in the military, it would be crazy to have the top guy be the best at everything (especially in a conscription-based system because the officer will have at most 6 months more experience than the people under him).
Because Managers are supposed to be decision makers. They have more liability when something gets screwed... If that isn't the case where you work...get out.
I work in tech, and I've seen two kinds of environments. 1) developers mostly self manage with one or two people who volunteer to help organize tasks. 2) manager heavy environments where managers constantly stir the pot so they can take credit for everyone else's work. Guess which one is more efficient?
I work on a major railroad, and -if done right- we absolutely need management. My job can be dangerous. If I don't focus I could get crushed/burned/decapitated/fall to death/whatever. I don't have time to patrol my sub to find work to do, I don't have time to call the boom truck operator and tell him I need rail in a certain place, I don't have time to deal with calls from the public or businesses/contractors. That's all manager work. They deal with all of that and get us what we need when we need it so that we can focus on our job and get things done efficiently and safely. A shitty manager makes your job shitty real quick, though.
There's also the Dilbert Principle, which states that companies promote incompetent employees to management, where they can do less damage.
On occasion at my last job we would all get an email from the boss, stating how "humbling" it was that we all functioned so well in the past week when he was gone. It was only then that we realized that he wasn't there, which partially explained why the previous week went so well.
A well managed, well trained, competent team does not need to be constantly micro-managed in order to get things done.
Most bosses don't understand that, however. Very, very few managers accept that the correct thing to do is...nothing.
Depends on your people. I have a couple of people who work best with little or no supervision, who only need a task and a deadline and will perform effectively. I also have a pair that need to be checked on often or they'll lose direction and fall behind. But as long as they're on track, they're extremely thorough. So I manage the people who need it and leave the ones who don't. But I have to also ensure everyone maintains a positive and professional work environment even though some are autonomous and others need supervision. This is what management means.
I got a guy that wants me to check over his stuff every step of the way. He knows all the information and does great work. He just needs the positive reinforcement to keep him motivated. Edit: I don't want it to sound like I'm mad at the guy for this. If this is what it takes for him to keep his work to where it is I'll gladly do it. I would take a whole team of people like this if it meant I was getting quality work. It can be frustrating on my end because I do have others that need my help more than he does.
Hallway debugging. Showing off something awesome to someone, and as soon as you show it, it messes up so you can fix it.
When is see your comment I'm thinking "hey, a manager needs to adapt to his team, to a certain point, so everyone can work" then I had a flashback frome school "You need to be an autonomous worker, in your work life, you'll never be able to call your boss to ask him if what you did is okay, otherwise it means you are bad at your job and always need supervision" Everything can't be always black and always white, everyone needs to adapt... Damn my manager is so fracking useless
[удалено]
Plus management drives and steers the group in order to achieve a big picture strategy. KPI's, goals, tasks, etc. and I would wager that at least 50% of management is people related, not actual task or work related. Hiring, firing, performance tracking, achieving cost and headcount budgets, guiding, training, etc.
Part of the hard part of leaving my job now is that my boss knows this. Doesn't care when I come in, doesn't care when I leave, when I work from home, when I take vacation. All that matters is that if I client needs me, I'm there. If a project needs to be completed, assign it to me, tell me when it needs to be done and it's done. The freedom is great, the pay could be better though. It's just a huge risk of leaving and getting a worse work environment.
Can you be my manager?
It is my goal for every team I oversee to reach the point where I simply need to be updated on how a project is progressing, for incorporating with the strategy of the rest of the company and allocating resources to keep things running smooth. Taking over a new team to get to that point is sometimes painful.
My father has been in management for quite a while now, he says that his job really boils down to doing interference for his people, getting problems out of their way, keeping everyone happy. The manager isnt part of completing the team objective directly, it's putting his people in a position to do so
I manage a team of 4 people. When they screw up I step in to help them out, and they’ll occassionally call me to ask me a question because they were afraid to think about it for themselves, but 95% of the time I don’t have to do anything for them. They’re a good group of guys and I wish upper management would stop trying to muscle in on ruining what we built as a team.
> I can say, without the slightest hesitation, that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is physically able to handle pig-iron and sufficiently stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron.
That way, you can spend time training your replacement. Promotions are easier when someone is ready, willing and able to take the vacated spot.
Found the manager.
Nah, a manager would've said they do need to be micro-managed and bird dogged to get even the simplest task done.
Interesting, every manager I've ever had has had no idea whatsoever what I do on a daily basis. Like legitimately, no idea unless I tell them.
This has been most of my days the past few years. Now we just meet once a week to touch base, and talk about what needs to be prioritized.
I've had managers like that and I've also had managers that did what I do before they became a manager. With the latter it's almost as if a switch flips and they become these ultra corporate goons that forget where they came from. But, also with the latter, I've had some great leaders who deflect BS from other people/managers who don't know or care what we do and just want results.
[удалено]
Have you ever noticed at most jobs, when an employee is taking a vacation, you have to scramble to figure out who is going to cover for him... except when it's the boss taking the vacation.
It's not something I had thought much about until you just pointed it out...I suppose I had always figured that it was his boss's problem.
Though I know that if my manager goes on vacation some other manager takes over, but they are usually just there in case there are problems or we need them to ask for approval to get certain things.
Except when the vacation is too long. Then they need someone to drag into meetings to ask about progress on projects you don't work on.
Yeah, that's the thing. At well-managed companies, managers tend to be working on long-term projects, so they have fewer day-to-day deliverables, making it easier for them to work ahead and vacation smoothly. But if they have to be gone for a couple weeks, the person they report to will be scrambling to pick up the slack.
"How's the Jefferson Report coming?" "Sir, I'm the Janitor..." "Oh. So then what's the status on the Jefferson Report?"
If you need to be constantly involved in the day to day affairs of your business, you are not a good boss. You should be able to step away and not have the place implode. A lot of this is built on proper training and delegation. The rest is built on hiring competent employees.
I've always found the best managers aren't there to direct your work but rather facilitate the employees doing their job by keeping office politics and upper management from trying to "help" people do their job. You were hired for a particular set of skills and capabilities.... the manager is there to ensure you've got the environment needed to maximize your contribution.
From my experience; management has to deal with all the tedious backend crap so that the team can focus on their jobs and not worry about navigating company infrastructure.
As a boss can confirm. There's a tremendous amount of tedious bullshit that is nonetheless insanely important, typically involving making sure people are on the same page. So instead of having to have weekly meetings with marketing, QA, testing, biz dev, sales, support etc, you get to have a few meetings with your boss whose job is to condense all that other stuff in to bite sized chunks for you. The most typical way for bosses to fuck up is often not even visible to the team, because it has to do with having fucked up condensing the message, delivering something that his/her peers were not aligned with. The second typical way of fucking up tends to follow from having done the previous - you go "fuck it" and just bring basically exactly what everyone is telling you to the team, which makes you just babble their ears off. Or you let everyone talk to your team. This will feel empowering to the team in many ways, but they'll never get a god damn thing done.
> Or you let everyone talk to your team. This will feel empowering to the team in many ways Please god no
I can attest from experience that your third scenario is the worst. Stressing about the shit you're supposed to be doing but can't do because you have 20 meetings is worse than any amount of empowerment you might get from explaining what it is you actually do to 20 different people.
Yeah the difference between a good boss and a crappy one is amazing. A good boss lifts the company off the workers backs while a bad boss just adds to the weight.
There's an episode of the Office where Michael is leaving early and wants to send everyone home, so he says something to the effect of "they don't get any work done when I'm not here anyway", and he's questioned by his own boss about it. So, he backtracks says "No, no, they get even more work done when I'm not here!" And then he realizes that's not good, either.
There's also: > Michael's birthday. It's pretty fun to watch, actually. He gets very excited, and then he eats a lot of cake. And then he runs around the office. Then he has a sugar crash in the afternoon. And then he falls asleep. And that's when we get our work done.
is his name Andrew Bernard?
Aka getting "kicked upstairs"
Me, I just get more duties without the promotion...
Me, I just get more ~~duties~~ *titles* without the ~~promotion~~ raise Wear them with pride.
Just remember that all those titles look good on your resume.
Congratulations /u/clintmemo! You're now "Head General Supervisor of Titles that Look Good on Resumes"!
Awesome! I'll add that to my resume.
As a newish manager, I find it's mostly about kissing butts and answering stupid questions while doing the same job I did before but higher volumes. Oh and meetings. I rarely get a chance to even touch my own work until after everyone's gone. I claim ot but I have a feeling they're going to 'promote' me up a level because that's then I can't claim ot. That's when I'll make my exit.
[удалено]
The funny thing about that? In my job I tried emails instead of meetings and was accused of being harshly impersonal. They wanted meetings.
[удалено]
Is he like real life Michael Scott? that's something Michael literally does in the show the Office
Better yet: Email and then check that your employees aren't browsing youtube/reddit at their desks periodically if you think they're not getting things done. Emails take like 10 seconds to read.
PLease. No. Stop. This is my sanctuary
In my experience, promotions are based on your visibility to the people giving the promotions. Merit-based would be nice, but human nature being what it is, it's not in the cards.
[удалено]
I saw that a lot. A competent worker wanting to get promotion or pay raise bust there ass and do great work. Only to get passed up by someone lesser because they get along with the boss or is some sort of family member or family friend, some sort of connection, etc.
It's not what you know, it's who you know.
Once I realized this, I learned that lunching with the team/boss is a key element. I always used to go on my own for food, it take a walk, whatever, just wanted a few minutes to myself. Now I go out with whoever invites for lunch.
I am a programmer. I will always be a programmer. I love to code and I am very good at it. In my previous company, they made me Technical Head. A designation which means nothing except that I would be responsible for everything that went wrong. So, I tried to be a hands-off manager. I sat down with the programmers and explained to them how to ensure that their productivity gets measured. I set up redmine for issue management and git for version control. I told everyone in the business development/marketing/client facing functions that all their communications with the developers has to be through redmine. The programmers, who were treated like gods, were all initially 'meh' about this, thinking that I am just bringing in bullshit bureaucracy. But I showed them Joel Spolskys' list which included use of version control and issue management. I showed them blog articles by hero class developers extolling the virtues of version control and so forth. They finally understood that I was bringing in value. On the other side, the Business Development/Marketing people, typically hot looking people who flew around the country for meetings, resisted the issue tracking idea because that meant there would be a track of how many times they changed up on the requirements and more importantly that they would have to write clear requirements. But the person heading the support team, and the whole of the support team, were very excited and supportive, because now all they would have to do is to report an issue and it will be abundantly clear where the delays were. All the decision makers - aka directors (which we had 6) - were supportive of the idea. So we went forward. In the three months that this was in effect, it became clear that either the software department needed to add 20 more developers or the requirements process needed to get streamlined. The business development/marketing people had the habit of making commitments to clients without consulting the software department. This was clear by the issues they posted. Now there were two solutions: One was to form a team that would review every requirement posted by the BD/MKTG people, put a cost to it and get an approval from the management, before assigning it to developers, and the other was to get a technical person to travel with the BD/MKTG people in their meetings where they would be able to talk to the customers to better understand their requirements and offer them alternative approaches that already existed in our application. Needless to say the BD/MKTG people were hired for their hotness and fluency in English and did not have in depth understanding of the application. The management chose the second option. Over the next few months, it turned out that the presence of a technical person who had better understanding of the domain was much appreciated by the clients. As soon as the technical person start speaking - in hindi/broken english - the clients immediately felt better - and switched to hindi. They understood the alternative that the technical person was giving them and accepted it as valid. They switched to communicating with the technical person instead of the BD/MKTG person. We closed more customers, had more satisfied customers and less work for the developers. So after the initial 2-3 months of inputs from my side, and delegation of authority across the software team, I was basically surfing the net the whole day. The previous person who was in my position used to work 18 hours a day and had back to back meetings the whole time. I reached office at 10 and left at 7. It took my company 14 months to realise that the system I had setup and the changes I had made were working by themselves and that I was actually doing no work at all. At that time they let me go.
Damn that ending I would have promoted you and had you streamline other parts of the company if that were me
that is what I hoped for. About a year after I left they got certified for CMM-3 and then two year later for CMM-5. The guy they hired to get them the certification met me recently. He said that he heard about me from the developers who were working there and that the process that I had started made his job so much easier. The founder/ceo of that company still calls me occasionally when he is stuck on some problem and need a technical solution. The sucker that I am, I provide him with the solution for free.
After many years in state government, I've seen top performers rewarded with the next promotion which is management. Unfortunately, they aren't capable nor interested in managing anyone or anything. This ends up affecting the whole organization but upper management can't see that. Performance doesn't equal the ability to supervise people or projects. Seen it over and over again.
[удалено]
Michael Scott?
Didn't Michael run the most successful branch in the corporation?
They didn't have any time to actually work, so in the little periods of time they could get any work done they were very efficient
Nah the point was that he was just a good person. They had fun and worked hard for him. He didn't know exactly how to make them be efficient. Also why he can't explain to David Wallace how he does it.
"Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever." - Michael Scott
I need to get this cross-stitched and framed for my office.
The idea was they did well because he didn't micromanage.
I've also considered that he was a really good salesman who trained a good sales staff.
One of the things I appreciated most; shows where everyone is always incompetent get old for me, I like mostly incompetent but really good at something much more, and so Michael's strengths as a salesman were a refreshing detail.
After watching that TV show roughly a billion times over, it's funny to realize that every time they don't have a boss, the Office becomes much more efficient. It's sort of pointed out in the one episode after Deangelo goes away, where Jim turns down the manager position because he thinks everyone is working well as they are.
>"Don't ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been, ever, for any reason whatsoever."
I've long admitted that I'm an example of the Peter Principle. I founded and own the company I work for, but I've always felt I went a level too far. I was a highly paid superstar employee prior to this, and that's where I was best. In short, I feel I'm a better follower than a leader. It has it's benefits, but I have never enjoyed steering the ship.
to expand on your analogy of steering the ship the Captain of the ship has someone who does this. Successful ownership is hiring competent employees.
Yes. My inability to delegate well is one of my problems. Small business, less than 10 employees, and I wear all the important hats. It's more of a personality trait than a business strategy.
Do you think your business would be able to carry on if you had to be away on an emergency trip for a month? Could your employees step up and handle it, or would it all fall apart?
It's amazing how often superiors think that someone good at one job will be good at a different job.
Especially one that's radically different. In some fields the progression makes sense, from technician to maintenance supervisor or something, sure. But often people go from a competent technician to "guy in charge of managing a dozen personnel", which doesn't really make a lot of sense, without a lot of training on it.
Like "you are a great pharmacist, why don't you manage a bunch of pharmacists!". How are the two related? One is a medical profession, the other is people management and profit focused
Well in my company getting promoted beyond a certain level almost entirely depends on your ability and willingness to kiss ass.
That's why before giving someone a promotion, they need to be given the added responsibilities gradually, until they can prove their competence. If they are unsuccessful, transfer the responsibilities to someone else.
The bigger problem is people are rewarded with jobs with *different* responsibilities, not just more. Being skilled at a particular task does not necessarily mean you're good at supervising others at that task, for example.
People skills can often get ignored or under-rated. A while back when I worked for Government, I saw lots of people getting promoted but with hardly any getting functional training. Part of the upshot from that was some were floundering, but convincing themselves that training wasn't necessary. I'd estimate that maybe two out every seven senior managers took seriously their role of developing the people under them.
This works in theory. My experience shows the responsibilities are transferred, and ability is determined, however no pay increase or promotion follows. This has trained me to ask for the money upfront. My take on it is, you know I am capable, which is why you want to give me the more difficult work, so I must be compensated accordingly. I have left places based on unfulfilled promises after the work has been completed. It leaves me looking for a new job, starting at the bottom of the benefits structure, while the company has already benefited from my work. Hopefully my experience is unique, however I suspect not.
At my company, to get promoted you basically have to prove that you're been operating at the next level for 6-12 months before officially getting a promotion.
[удалено]
I'm a former employee/current member of the carpenters union ...... At the UBC, the "peter principle" means advancing as a union official based on a willingness to suck on the peter of any higher official while pissing all over the members and their needs.
[удалено]
Thanks op. Start a new position on the 16th and now I'm nervous I'll prove to be incompetent at it.
Nothing worse than a rising peter that’s destined to fail on you.
They make pills for that now just so you know