Southwest Virginia Blogs

I wish that was the prediction for most employees.  Experience has taught me that it is unlikely most employees will experience even trustworthy management, much less great management.    A new survey reported by Brent Kallestad of the Associated Press seems to add some substance to my guess.

Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

If you have worked in the business world, the odds are that you have experienced a bad boss.  While I don't have a survey to back it up, most bad bosses tend to move around until they find a spot where either no one in upper management cares, or they're running the whole ship until it sinks or runs aground.   A bad boss doesn't necessarily translate into a bad company or one where you should avoid their products and services.  It just means working there might be a challenge if you get on the wrong side of the guy or gal with power who might have even gotten his or her lofty position by being a little loose with the truth.

The American system is set up right now so that it is very hard to weed out bad bosses.   It is highly unlikely that companies will say anything negative about former employees for fear of a lawsuit.  Even if they find a spot internally for a weasel boss, the problems are likely to be ignored.  Speaking of weasels, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted the annual 2006 weasel list.

Most companies have great difficulty in identifying competence much less hiring it.  Executives tend to like people who remind them of themselves or assume that the guy who is fun to golf with might also be a great executive.  Defining what needs to be done, recognizing that it has been done well, and rewarding that good job is a challenge.  Even acknowledging good work is a problem for some bosses.  Saying thanks for a job well done, is one of the cheapest ways to motivate people, but that still doesn't make it easy to do for some.

I have seen teams willing to work unbelievable hours become completely unmotivated when a bad boss arrived on the scene. Making promises that never will  be kept is the fastest way I know to deflate motivation.  Some bosses immediately feel threatened by any competent employees and will often go to great lengths to ensure that no one outshines them.  That just perpetuates bad management.

The reality is that defining, finding, hiring, and keeping competent hardworking people is a huge challenge once you factor in company culture, personalities, and changing job requirements.  It's no wonder that a lot of very competent people steer clear of management roles.  Those jobs are often surrounded by hidden minefields and involve a lot of thankless work.

This morning I noticed in a NY Times article, "Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm," that Google has tried to reduce hiring to something of a science.  That probably works as well as anything.  It's pretty clear that interviews are an inexact science at best. 

Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google — in typical eccentric fashion — has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.

Of course most companies don't have the luxury of Google's 100,000 applications, so sometimes they take the best that they can find which sometimes ends up working pretty well in the end.  Sometimes the best employee on paper or the one who comes through the interviews the best turns out to be a poor fit for one reason or another.  In truth giving competent people at shot at proving themselves works pretty well.

Having a successful team is a complex equation, but one thing is for sure, a boss who can't keep his commitments or continually changes his mind doesn't make life any easier for the company or the employees.

I wish that was the prediction for most employees.  Experience has taught me that it is unlikely most employees will experience even trustworthy management, much less great management.    A new survey reported by Brent Kallestad of the Associated Press seems to add some substance to my guess.

Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

If you have worked in the business world, the odds are that you have experienced a bad boss.  While I don't have a survey to back it up, most bad bosses tend to move around until they find a spot where either no one in upper management cares, or they're running the whole ship until it sinks or runs aground.   A bad boss doesn't necessarily translate into a bad company or one where you should avoid their products and services.  It just means working there might be a challenge if you get on the wrong side of the guy or gal with power who might have even gotten his or her lofty position by being a little loose with the truth.

The American system is set up right now so that it is very hard to weed out bad bosses.   It is highly unlikely that companies will say anything negative about former employees for fear of a lawsuit.  Even if they find a spot internally for a weasel boss, the problems are likely to be ignored.  Speaking of weasels, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted the annual 2006 weasel list.

Most companies have great difficulty in identifying competence much less hiring it.  Executives tend to like people who remind them of themselves or assume that the guy who is fun to golf with might also be a great executive.  Defining what needs to be done, recognizing that it has been done well, and rewarding that good job is a challenge.  Even acknowledging good work is a problem for some bosses.  Saying thanks for a job well done, is one of the cheapest ways to motivate people, but that still doesn't make it easy to do for some.

I have seen teams willing to work unbelievable hours become completely unmotivated when a bad boss arrived on the scene. Making promises that never will  be kept is the fastest way I know to deflate motivation.  Some bosses immediately feel threatened by any competent employees and will often go to great lengths to ensure that no one outshines them.  That just perpetuates bad management.

The reality is that defining, finding, hiring, and keeping competent hardworking people is a huge challenge once you factor in company culture, personalities, and changing job requirements.  It's no wonder that a lot of very competent people steer clear of management roles.  Those jobs are often surrounded by hidden minefields and involve a lot of thankless work.

This morning I noticed in a NY Times article, "Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm," that Google has tried to reduce hiring to something of a science.  That probably works as well as anything.  It's pretty clear that interviews are an inexact science at best. 

Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google — in typical eccentric fashion — has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.

Of course most companies don't have the luxury of Google's 100,000 applications, so sometimes they take the best that they can find which sometimes ends up working pretty well in the end.  Sometimes the best employee on paper or the one who comes through the interviews the best turns out to be a poor fit for one reason or another.  In truth giving competent people at shot at proving themselves works pretty well.

Having a successful team is a complex equation, but one thing is for sure, a boss who can't keep his commitments or continually changes his mind doesn't make life any easier for the company or the employees.

I wish that was the prediction for most employees.  Experience has taught me that it is unlikely most employees will experience even trustworthy management, much less great management.    A new survey reported by Brent Kallestad of the Associated Press seems to add some substance to my guess.

Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

If you have worked in the business world, the odds are that you have experienced a bad boss.  While I don't have a survey to back it up, most bad bosses tend to move around until they find a spot where either no one in upper management cares, or they're running the whole ship until it sinks or runs aground.   A bad boss doesn't necessarily translate into a bad company or one where you should avoid their products and services.  It just means working there might be a challenge if you get on the wrong side of the guy or gal with power who might have even gotten his or her lofty position by being a little loose with the truth.

The American system is set up right now so that it is very hard to weed out bad bosses.   It is highly unlikely that companies will say anything negative about former employees for fear of a lawsuit.  Even if they find a spot internally for a weasel boss, the problems are likely to be ignored.  Speaking of weasels, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted the annual 2006 weasel list.

Most companies have great difficulty in identifying competence much less hiring it.  Executives tend to like people who remind them of themselves or assume that the guy who is fun to golf with might also be a great executive.  Defining what needs to be done, recognizing that it has been done well, and rewarding that good job is a challenge.  Even acknowledging good work is a problem for some bosses.  Saying thanks for a job well done, is one of the cheapest ways to motivate people, but that still doesn't make it easy to do for some.

I have seen teams willing to work unbelievable hours become completely unmotivated when a bad boss arrived on the scene. Making promises that never will  be kept is the fastest way I know to deflate motivation.  Some bosses immediately feel threatened by any competent employees and will often go to great lengths to ensure that no one outshines them.  That just perpetuates bad management.

The reality is that defining, finding, hiring, and keeping competent hardworking people is a huge challenge once you factor in company culture, personalities, and changing job requirements.  It's no wonder that a lot of very competent people steer clear of management roles.  Those jobs are often surrounded by hidden minefields and involve a lot of thankless work.

This morning I noticed in a NY Times article, "Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm," that Google has tried to reduce hiring to something of a science.  That probably works as well as anything.  It's pretty clear that interviews are an inexact science at best. 

Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google — in typical eccentric fashion — has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.

Of course most companies don't have the luxury of Google's 100,000 applications, so sometimes they take the best that they can find which sometimes ends up working pretty well in the end.  Sometimes the best employee on paper or the one who comes through the interviews the best turns out to be a poor fit for one reason or another.  In truth giving competent people at shot at proving themselves works pretty well.

Having a successful team is a complex equation, but one thing is for sure, a boss who can't keep his commitments or continually changes his mind doesn't make life any easier for the company or the employees.

I wish that was the prediction for most employees.  Experience has taught me that it is unlikely most employees will experience even trustworthy management, much less great management.    A new survey reported by Brent Kallestad of the Associated Press seems to add some substance to my guess.

Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

If you have worked in the business world, the odds are that you have experienced a bad boss.  While I don't have a survey to back it up, most bad bosses tend to move around until they find a spot where either no one in upper management cares, or they're running the whole ship until it sinks or runs aground.   A bad boss doesn't necessarily translate into a bad company or one where you should avoid their products and services.  It just means working there might be a challenge if you get on the wrong side of the guy or gal with power who might have even gotten his or her lofty position by being a little loose with the truth.

The American system is set up right now so that it is very hard to weed out bad bosses.   It is highly unlikely that companies will say anything negative about former employees for fear of a lawsuit.  Even if they find a spot internally for a weasel boss, the problems are likely to be ignored.  Speaking of weasels, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted the annual 2006 weasel list.

Most companies have great difficulty in identifying competence much less hiring it.  Executives tend to like people who remind them of themselves or assume that the guy who is fun to golf with might also be a great executive.  Defining what needs to be done, recognizing that it has been done well, and rewarding that good job is a challenge.  Even acknowledging good work is a problem for some bosses.  Saying thanks for a job well done, is one of the cheapest ways to motivate people, but that still doesn't make it easy to do for some.

I have seen teams willing to work unbelievable hours become completely unmotivated when a bad boss arrived on the scene. Making promises that never will  be kept is the fastest way I know to deflate motivation.  Some bosses immediately feel threatened by any competent employees and will often go to great lengths to ensure that no one outshines them.  That just perpetuates bad management.

The reality is that defining, finding, hiring, and keeping competent hardworking people is a huge challenge once you factor in company culture, personalities, and changing job requirements.  It's no wonder that a lot of very competent people steer clear of management roles.  Those jobs are often surrounded by hidden minefields and involve a lot of thankless work.

This morning I noticed in a NY Times article, "Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm," that Google has tried to reduce hiring to something of a science.  That probably works as well as anything.  It's pretty clear that interviews are an inexact science at best. 

Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google — in typical eccentric fashion — has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.

Of course most companies don't have the luxury of Google's 100,000 applications, so sometimes they take the best that they can find which sometimes ends up working pretty well in the end.  Sometimes the best employee on paper or the one who comes through the interviews the best turns out to be a poor fit for one reason or another.  In truth giving competent people at shot at proving themselves works pretty well.

Having a successful team is a complex equation, but one thing is for sure, a boss who can't keep his commitments or continually changes his mind doesn't make life any easier for the company or the employees.

I wish that was the prediction for most employees.  Experience has taught me that it is unlikely most employees will experience even trustworthy management, much less great management.    A new survey reported by Brent Kallestad of the Associated Press seems to add some substance to my guess.

Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

If you have worked in the business world, the odds are that you have experienced a bad boss.  While I don't have a survey to back it up, most bad bosses tend to move around until they find a spot where either no one in upper management cares, or they're running the whole ship until it sinks or runs aground.   A bad boss doesn't necessarily translate into a bad company or one where you should avoid their products and services.  It just means working there might be a challenge if you get on the wrong side of the guy or gal with power who might have even gotten his or her lofty position by being a little loose with the truth.

The American system is set up right now so that it is very hard to weed out bad bosses.   It is highly unlikely that companies will say anything negative about former employees for fear of a lawsuit.  Even if they find a spot internally for a weasel boss, the problems are likely to be ignored.  Speaking of weasels, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted the annual 2006 weasel list.

Most companies have great difficulty in identifying competence much less hiring it.  Executives tend to like people who remind them of themselves or assume that the guy who is fun to golf with might also be a great executive.  Defining what needs to be done, recognizing that it has been done well, and rewarding that good job is a challenge.  Even acknowledging good work is a problem for some bosses.  Saying thanks for a job well done, is one of the cheapest ways to motivate people, but that still doesn't make it easy to do for some.

I have seen teams willing to work unbelievable hours become completely unmotivated when a bad boss arrived on the scene. Making promises that never will  be kept is the fastest way I know to deflate motivation.  Some bosses immediately feel threatened by any competent employees and will often go to great lengths to ensure that no one outshines them.  That just perpetuates bad management.

The reality is that defining, finding, hiring, and keeping competent hardworking people is a huge challenge once you factor in company culture, personalities, and changing job requirements.  It's no wonder that a lot of very competent people steer clear of management roles.  Those jobs are often surrounded by hidden minefields and involve a lot of thankless work.

This morning I noticed in a NY Times article, "Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm," that Google has tried to reduce hiring to something of a science.  That probably works as well as anything.  It's pretty clear that interviews are an inexact science at best. 

Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google — in typical eccentric fashion — has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.

Of course most companies don't have the luxury of Google's 100,000 applications, so sometimes they take the best that they can find which sometimes ends up working pretty well in the end.  Sometimes the best employee on paper or the one who comes through the interviews the best turns out to be a poor fit for one reason or another.  In truth giving competent people at shot at proving themselves works pretty well.

Having a successful team is a complex equation, but one thing is for sure, a boss who can't keep his commitments or continually changes his mind doesn't make life any easier for the company or the employees.

We used to live in a world where you had no choice but listen to a variety of opinions.  There were not that many media outlets.  You listened to the music on the radio, and watched the nightly news on one of the three major networks.

Now we can insulate ourselves with music that is only to our taste and news that fits our already hardened opinions. 

The challenge we face is making certain that we do not get so comfortable in our own little worlds that we cannot understand those who are not just like us.

One of the most important things that I have learned in my like is that if you take the time to appreciate what others do, you will realize that it takes lots of different kinds people to make our world go round.  Most of them do not get rich from their labors, but that does not take away from the importance of their efforts.

It does not matter if you are a roofer, farmer, waitress, high tech executive, or a doctor, what we do matters to lots of people.  There is great value in being proud of what you do and doing your job well.

At some point in your life,  you end respecting everyone who has managed to get through life with dignity.  We do not live in a simple world.  It is a great challenge to have a rewarding life while making enough money to be comfortable and share that life with someone you love and respect.

I read an article today that suggesting that a large number of today's young people expect to be millionaires before they are thirty.  Maybe the lure of riches is enough to make them live to work rather than work to live.

I wish them luck, but there are more important things than money.   The sooner you learn that, the better off you are.   Hopefully the young folks striving to be millionaires will figure that out.  Then again you have to get out of your own little world to understand that.  Some might even figure out that their parents did a pretty outstanding job providing for their family.

There is nothing wrong with loving to work hard and being proud of what you earn for your efforts.  The key is keeping perspective and not letting money or titles be the measure of the people you meet. 

The government gets most of our money anyway, so the less you make the less they get. 

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.

When things are going great, there's little pressure to do things differently.  We've all seen it.  Great results in business or politics can hide some really serious problems.  Usually by the time the hidden problems are uncovered, things have unraveled to the point that disaster can be just around the corner.

I've been in companies during great times and bad times.  The truth is that companies, like governments or even individual operate a little better when everything isn't going their way.  They become more open to exploring alternatives or looking at things from a different perspective.

We gotten to be a society where it's hard to admit you're wrong without supposedly losing face. Yet I believe failure only counts against you if you don't learn from it.  In the post, "On being an observer," I said the following.

The great who have never failed are probably not so great...

Not owning up to your failures or mistakes is not part of the recipe for success that a leader should follow.

Of course we all know far too well the example of the current administration in Washington which has refused to admit any mistakes in the Iraq war.  If appears that "Stay the course" has finally been retired, not because of any willingness to admit mistakes, but because it appears the Republican majority is in danger of disappearing.  This was in the Washington Post this morning.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Businesses are no different.  They often blindly follow strategies because there is more ego involved than business savvy.  It's easy for a CEO to cruise along with business strategies whose only tests are the current quarter.  Yet businesses are different from government in one important distinction. 

Businesses, even large ones, sometimes change strategies like individuals change clothing.  Government, however,  is like a huge container ship.  Change is really hard in government.  Once the ship of state is going in one direction, getting it moving in another direction takes some serious pressure, something on the order of a disappearing majority.

As individuals, we often face the need to change without the resources to accomplish that change.

No matter what the situation, those who accept their own fallibility are much more likely to implement successful change.  It will be interesting to see how much change the coming election can bring to our government. 

We certainly have plenty of American companies who desperately need to change. 

Personally I'm hoping to change careers during the next year. So far it hasn't been easy, but my hope is that I'll respond as I have in previous pressure situations.  After all, the change from being a cattle breeder to a technology sales manager was not exactly an easy one.

I know one thing, I'm approaching my new career, chronicled in "You can teach an old dog new tricks," knowing that I have a lot to learn.  I've seen enough folks pretending to have all the answers to understand that it's a road to failure, even if it takes a long time to show up.