I came across this interesting column today called "12 Things We'd Tell Our Bosses". The writer apparently did some sort of survey of things that folks would like tell their bosses--but that they are generally hesitant (or afraid) to say. That raises some red flags: an organization has to be suffering if there are things that need to be said, but that aren't being said because folks are afraid of the repercussions.
As an aside, I'd encourage you to visit our new forum where we have the makings of an interesting discussion around the pros and cons of traditional hierarchy vs. self-management; this story is a classic example of the risk associated with "business as usual".
At any rate, back to my point. There were a handful of items in the list that jumped out at me. Some of the more notable things that "employees" would tell their "bosses" if they felt safe doing so:
There were some others (hence the title "12 things..."), but these ones seemed pretty significant to me. The first three seem to relate to an individuals desire to have some measure of control over their life and to do work that's meaningful. Incidentally, those three were numbers 1,3 and 4 on the list, respectively. We talk a lot here at the SMI about individuals' desire to control their own work, to do work that's meaningful, and to have some measure of freedom in their jobs--and these are pretty widely acknowledged ideas. Most managers, in fact, would probably agree that their employees want this. Yet, according to this article, a substantial number of people wish they could tell their boss that it's just not happening! Why is that?
Then we have frequent feedback. This was number 5 on the list. It was interesting to me that respondents to the survey referenced here said that they would like more feedback. More importantly, though, why do employees feel like they can't say this to their boss without repercussion? Why would a manager be upset that a subordinate wanted more feedback?
Finally, one of the more interesting of the 12: Don't make me work with idiots (number 8 on the list). I really like this one. So many times managers (I speak for myself as a former manager) hire people that seem to have the know-how to do the job, and stick them in a group without even asking the rest of the folks within the group what they think. The problem is that the person may have the technical expertise to get the job done, but they're toxic, dishonest or, frankly, just don't abide by the same set of principles as the rest of the group.
Seems like the self-management principles that we advocate are designed, in part, to eliminate these issues. Further, and perhaps more importantly, they are designed to mitigate the fear of reprisal by a superior for bringing up something that would enable colleagues to better do their job.
What do you think?
