Manager's forum???

[RalofTyr]

Is there a forum in which managers can post problems that can be answered by other managers?

Every time I google, I get seminar sites and BS business programs.

I have a few problems. We're having a problem with people leaving early(like everyone in the building). And I'm having a problem motivating my people to carry out the new program we started. They just don't want to do it. What should I do about it?

[sarongsong]

Here's one company's solution:
Company used waterboarding to motivate workers

[RalofTyr]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

Here's one company's solution:
Company used waterboarding to motivate workers

I lolled. Waterboarding's legal right?

I thought of a cattleprod, but anyways.

[Moose]

Ral, it sounds like a plain old morale issue, possibly coupled with February-blahs.

It seems to me that people who leave on time or a few minutes late are more likely to be enjoying their work than those overworked, under-appreciated Dilbertian masses out there who simply don't want to hang around at the end of the day.

That people are uninterested in the new project may be a sign of concerns that are not being addressed. Why not ask them about what their concerns are with the new project, really listen (far too many managers are unwilling to hear what they don't want to hear; a token effort at this will tend to destroy morale, not help it) and see if you can address them?

[novaderrik]

where i work- and every place i've ever worked- we have this thing called a "time clock" that you have to go up to before working and "punch in" or "clock in". then, at the end of the shift, you go up to it and "punch out" or "clock out".
come in a minute late, and you lose 15 minutes of pay and get a warning. get enough warnings, and you get to go look for another place to work.
it is a rather elegant way of doing things, really, and i just don't get why they don't do this at most offices.

[RalofTyr]

I think in this state, docking pay isn't legal.

Originally Posted by Moose

Ral, it sounds like a plain old morale issue, possibly coupled with February-blahs.

It seems to me that people who leave on time or a few minutes late are more likely to be enjoying their work than those overworked, under-appreciated Dilbertian masses out there who simply don't want to hang around at the end of the day.

Thanks. There's more to it than that. Apparently, their manager is on vacation that day and they left when their superviser went upstairs.

That people are uninterested in the new project may be a sign of concerns that are not being addressed. Why not ask them about what their concerns are with the new project, really listen (far too many managers are unwilling to hear what they don't want to hear; a token effort at this will tend to destroy morale, not help it) and see if you can address them?

My problem is that the people I have for this project are all college girls who aren't interested in working. Especially the ones that have been here for years. The new people, they work. That just want to come in, do their hours, and leave. I always ask how the project is coming along and they just say, "Fine".

[mike alexander]

Sorry I can't help much. Over the years I have avoided managerial positions like the plague. Probably for the very reasons you mention.

[Moose]

Perhaps, Ral. My first "real" job out of college, I'd been enthusiastic. Until two years later when I discovered the extent to which upper management had been taking advantage of the techies, myself (new guy on my second year) most of all.

My salary was raised roughly 25% the day four programmers resigned, one immediately after the other, less than two months after two other progs left (individually). We started out with ten programmers.

No other programmer was hired for years afterwards, because none would accept. According to the grape vine, "slave wages" was cited verbatim at least twice.

Prior to the meltdown (and I have it on good authority this was a major reason for the four progs leaving en masse), upper management tried to address the massive company-wide morale problem by soliciting anonymous concerns via a comment box left in a discrete area.

The comments were laundered and collated by a junior manager (mine, as it turned out) so that upper management wouldn't inadvertently get clues as to identities. My concern list turned out to be one of the more tactful ones. Most comments were blunt, the recommendations brutally honest, and the ones topping the list ("lack of confidence") had been cited dozens of times.

Upper management made no changes, and openly shrugged off the criticism. They failed to listen, and did so openly.

My pleasure at the raise was tempered severely by the context. And none of this did very much for my confidence in management and managers in general. To contrast, the folks I worked with were quality, and I'd work with any of them again, gladly. Them, I came to trust.

So yes, it's possible that a significant proportion of these women, apparently weighted mainly towards the ones who've been there a while, just don't feel like working while the new women do, and that the project really is "fine". Or it could be indicative of a more serious problem within the company, one that doesn't necessarily begin with them, and a problem that they appear unwilling to talk openly to management about.

It's up to you and others from here, Ral. I've said what I had to say.

[novaderrik]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

I think in this state, docking pay isn't legal.

is it considered "docking pay" if the employees are actually physically leaving the workplace before they are supposed to?
if i was to decide that i want to leave work at 3:15 instead of 3:30 when my shift ends, i could be considered to have voluntarily quit, and i'd no longer have a job there- and i would also be ineligible for state unemployment benefits.
maybe it's time to be a leader and bring the hammer down. this is one of the reasons that our country is becoming less competitive in the world marketplace- as a society, we are becoming too worried about hurting people's feelings and not holding them accountable for their actions.

[Maksutov]

At one company I noticed some of my staff were leaving early as well as taking long lunch breaks. These were hourly folks who were required to clock out when leaving the premises and also at the beginning of lunch, and then clock back in. The time they missed was deducted from their weekly hours worked and resulted in smaller paychecks.

More importantly this was a trend I didn't want spreading to the whole department, so I met with each of the persons who were shorting themselves to find out why. The reasons were as varied as the people I talked with. I made it clear that company policy was you worked the hours you were scheduled for, be that 8, 10, or 12. If there was some legitimate reason that required occasional changes to the work schedule for the particular individual, that adjustments could be made on a case-by-case basis. And that's what I did.

In one instance a person had to leave early one day of the week due to the day care schedule and unavailability of another person to provide a ride for her son. In another, the person had lost his car in a wreck, couldn't afford a replacement right away or a rental, and the car pool he had connected with arrived 20 minutes before the normal end of his shift. Again I made a temporary adjustment to this person's schedule.

I made it clear in a general meeting (documented by a written "read and sign" statement of policy) that my staff was expected to work their scheduled hours, and that any change to these hours had to be approved by me either in advance or right away for emergencies. This, along with a couple of violators getting time off without pay, cured the "they're leaving early, I think I will too and I think I deserve a longer lunch break" problem with some of the other staff members.

[RalofTyr]

per people leaving early, the supervisor really wants revenge because she feels they betrayed her by leaving early and not cleaning up, so with that in mind, I will probably tell her to tell her manager when she gets back from vaction to release a memo stating that they will get "written up" in they leave early. That should scare some of them. I had another thought of writting the names of all that left early and just reducing their hours, or give them closing then opening shifts and sucky shifts in general.

Originally Posted by novaderrik

... we are becoming too worried about hurting people's feelings and not holding them accountable for their actions.

Don't worry. That's not me. I don't mind hurting their feelings.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

per people leaving early, the supervisor really wants revenge because she feels they betrayed her by leaving early and not cleaning up

Managing people based on revenge is a faulty approach, one bound to cause problems. In fact, you may have identified the problem right there. I would guess the supervisor needs training on how to properly supervise people.

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

...so with that in mind, I will probably tell her to tell her manager when she gets back from vaction to release a memo stating that they will get "written up" in they leave early.

Memos should only follow actual interpersonal actions with the parties involved. Just posting a memo will create or reinforce a workforce's perception of management being aloof and hard to communicate with.

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

That should scare some of them.

Scaring people is an ineffective management style that usually produces negative results.

Originally Posted by RalofTyr

I had another thought of writting the names of all that left early and just reducing their hours, or give them closing then opening shifts and sucky shifts in general.

Good way to create even more discontented employees and perhaps a few martyrs. Treat them like people, not pawns. Talk with them about what's going on.

What kind of business are you in?

[RalofTyr]

No luck with the a manager's forum?

I would like to debate the aspects of management with other managers in a specific forum....perhaps I should create one...

Originally Posted by Maksutov

Managing people based on revenge is a faulty approach, one bound to cause problems. In fact, you may have identified the problem right there. I would guess the supervisor needs training on how to properly supervise people.

I know. That's why I'm not going to be totally at her back. Because I know her real motivations and I have to do what's best for the company.

Scaring people is an ineffective management style that usually produces negative results. Good way to create even more discontented employees and perhaps a few martyrs. Treat them like people, not pawns. Talk with them about what's going on.

I'm pretty sure they just don't want to complete their shift and wanted to go home early because their Type A manager wasn't there. Type A manager is someone that believes people need constant supervison and a KITA type.

If I treat them like people, they will take advantage of me.

And Machiavelli would disagree about the scaring part...

What kind of business are you in?

Dept. store. And they are easily replaceable. Christmas demonstrated this. All my temps worked twice as hard as my regulars and wanted to stay perminately.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by General Sun Tzu as related by Su-ma Chi'en, about 100BC

"If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear and the solders nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

At no point did Sun Tzu blame the troops (concubines conscripted for a demonstration), en masse or individually, for their failure to obey.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu, Art of War

The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

Leaders inspire. They don't drive.

Originally Posted by Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Nonetheless, [...] his behavior must be tempered by humanity and prudence so that over-confidence does not make him rash or excessive distrust make him unbearable.

[mike alexander]

I'm pretty sure they just don't want to complete their shift and wanted to go home early because their Type A manager wasn't there. Type A manager is someone that believes people need constant supervison and a KITA type.

Well, there you go. If people really need constant supervision they are in the wrong job (which includes just hating work), haven't been properly trained, or hate their particular situation so much that they are looking for any excuse to head North.

I pretty much agree with Mak (saves me time typing, no?)

If I treat them like people, they will take advantage of me.

And Machiavelli would disagree about the scaring part...

That first line is a bit scary. My first question would be 'Why would they do so?' And I really don't care much about what old Mach said. He lived and wrote about different things in a culture so removed from ours that it could qualify as science fiction. Unless the eternal truth is that absolute power is always the trump card, and big deal.

[novaderrik]

well, if temps were more eager to do the same job they are, then maybe bring back one or two of them as permanent employees. you can find time for them by cutting back on the hours of the people that don't want to be there anyways. this will motivate them to either ask for more hours or move on to another "opportunity in the sales field".

[RalofTyr]

I'm going to have a fellow employee who was experience in commission dress sales to train them as for the other superviser's problem....I've concluded that since it was only three people that walked out, she's a drama queen.