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?
