Some tasks seem to take much longer than they should, don’t they?

But it’s no surprise, when you think about it…

1. Tasks take too long because there are too many people involved. Too much subjectivity (opinions, tastes, preferences and the like). Too many diaries to get in sync. Too many egos. Too many jobs to justify the existence of.
2. Tasks take too long because they are too big, and unwieldy. Big tasks scare people. Tasks are not manageable in bitesize chunks.
3. Tasks take too long because of process. Process (i.e. bureaucracy) can stop tasks starting, continuing, and even stopping when they should. Too much process stops people actually executing (getting on with the work). Too much process means that tasks can be too expensive, or time consuming, so they don’t get done.
4. Tasks take too long because people don’t see the benefit of doing them. When workers can’t see the benefit of completing a task, it can be stalled or dropped in an unfinished state. If you don’t know what a task results in, why do it?
5. Tasks take too long because they are the  wrong task. Some tasks shouldn’t even be done in the first place, because they’re inefficient, unethical, or plain stupid. Workers know this, so they stall or delay in completing these tasks.
6. Tasks take too long because they are being performed alongside other tasks. Other tasks compete for time. Unplanned work gets in the way. Too many concurrent tasks creates complexity and uncertainty.
7. Tasks take too long because they are difficult. Difficult tasks (not to say impossible tasks) are delayed in favor of easier tasks. Difficult tasks require energy that people just don’t want to give, or have.
8. Tasks take too long because people don’t want to do them. Some tasks are just not pleasant, or interesting. Some tasks aren’t cool. Some tasks are below our pay-grades. Some tasks make us look stupid. Some tasks are embarrassing. Sometimes, we just can’t be bothered.
9. Tasks take too long because they are too badly defined. Too little information to know how to start, process or end. Too little data as input. Too much confusion about what a good result looks like. Too much ambiguity in the task’s definition. Some school examination papers are like this.
10. Tasks take too long because the people doing them are ill-equipped. Too little time, too little knowledge, not enough tools, money or resources. Incompetence.

Now when any number of factors are combined, the likelihood of the task NOT being done on time is exponentially greater.

Just imagine: a badly defined, difficult task performed by a large number of busy people who don’t have the tools to do it…… think it will be late?

Bet you’ve had a few of these in your time.

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

Only a few years ago, the gossip in the workplace centered around the water-cooler; a meeting place where the latest news about colleagues and management-decisions were discussed and often bitched about. More recently, the water-cooler is becoming lonely. Social media is taking over as the gathering point for gossip. Has it for you?

If you don’t Facebook, you probably know someone who does. (Why don’t you Facebook?) Or maybe you prefer something more high-brow like LinkedIn. Social networking platforms enable you, your friends and your colleagues to relate to each other, provide support , argue – whatever you feel like talking about. It’s a gossipers paradise. You don’t even need to be in the same country, let alone floor of an office.

And why not? It’s fun! It’s an easy way of sharing your news and taking a quick break. We all need a break. Because of that, more and more people are using Facebook in the workplace. Do you?

Why do you use social networking whilst at work?

Sarah Perez shares the results of research conducted by Nucleus Research on the blog ReadWriteWeb. Their study tells us that 87% of the 237 people who responded admitted that their use of Facebook has nothing to do with their work, which resulted in 1.5% drop in their productivity. If this research is read by your boss, what would the reaction be? I expect that FACEBOOK.COM would be blocked right away… or maybe you’d accept a 1.5% pay cut? (Err… nah! Don’t think so)

Do you agree with the conclusion of this research? Does your Facebooking time result in less work?

Personally, I don’t agree. For many people, taking a break from work – even a few minutes – gives us time to sort the clutter in our heads and allows us to get focus and clarity on the job in hand. If you’re like me, a short-term distraction gives your inner-brain an opportunity to solve the problems your working on without you becoming tired or frustrated. I’d say my productivity increases, significantly.

In 2008, the conclusion that Facebook reduced employee productivity was also being challenged by Goldsmith College in London, UK (as reported by the Telegraph newspaper). The research discovered that most of the 1,700 workers surveyed felt more productive after an ‘e-break’ (using the Internet) than they did following a traditional kind of break.

Sarah Perez also shares research performed by the University of Melbourne which confirms this view. The research concludes that people who take short breaks are, in fact, 9% more productive. Those are not just Facebook breaks, but any kind of break.

At least with a Facebook break, we remain at our desk and contactable…

Where it Went Wrong… (an example)

Did you see this story?

“Teenage office worker (Kimberley Swann) sacked for moaning on Facebook about her ‘totally boring’ job”.

To summarize the story: Kimberley Swann added comments to her Facebook profile that she was bored in her job. She didn’t mention her company name in the updates, but those who know her will guess who she is referring to. Her ‘mistake’ was that her boss was also one of her Facebook friends, so he read the comments, got pissed off, and gave her the boot.

Do you think this is fair?

If she had said that at the water cooler, would Kimberley have been treated the same way?

The two sides of this debate are a) employers don’t want their reputation damaged in the public eye, b) employees want to share views on their life (of which work is a significant aspect of) with friends in a private forum.

So doesn’t the debate center on what is ‘public’ and what is ‘private’? In the case of Facebook, you actually have to be a ‘friend’ of someone to see their updates, which requires mutual consent. In the case of other platforms like Twitter, you can follow the updates of anyone you like, providing they don’t block you or mark their updates as private. So is it reasonable to claim that anything you write as an update to your Facebook profile is ‘private’ and therefore confidential?

It’s a grey area. How does your employer know how selective you are about who you make friends with online? Employers are bound to take the side of caution. Still, does it make it fair to restrict what an employee says in a private forum, no matter who is a member of it? I think it is unfair – damned unfair – but I don’t make the rules.

Until social networking becomes accepted as the norm by employers (which is an inevitability), should we exercise some restraint if we want to avoid any kind of recrimination, regardless if we think this is right or not?

My advice – use common sense. If you must bitch, make sure there isn’t anyone connected to you who will be offended. Yeah this is really boring but if it’s my livelihood at stake I’d rather make sure that wasn’t under threat.

The other thing I suggest you do is to find out if your organization has policies that specifically govern your use of social media. You could simply ask your boss what the deal is with commenting on Facebook.

Organizations must begin to treat its staff like responsible adults.

Contribute to the Debate

Do you think Kimberley Swann faced rough justice? Or was she just being naive? And do you think that your use of Facebook at work is legitimate?

Share your view in two ways:

1) Take the Facebook at Work survey to see how you compare with your peers. Results will be posted on 15 October 2009. Subscribe to the RSS feed to see them.
2) Leave a comment below and tell us your opinion

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

I was with a group of 126 recently appointed managers and we were talking about our relationships with our boss. I just love it when people begin to talk about the subjects that matter to them.

The group shared their thoughts on how they have suffered from bad relationships with their boss, and more to the point, how their relationships turned sour in the first place. It was such an interesting (and enlightening) conversation that I am sharing with you what I learned.

So I discovered the 5 reasons why your boss might hate you (although there maybe more, these are the biggies)

You are a Threat

If your boss believes you pose a threat to their job then they could turn nasty. If you walk around with a halo on your head (put there by your peers, or even your manager’s peers or superiors) then this could be perceived as dangerous to your boss.

This goes beyond the belief of your boss that you are after their job. By building up a strong profile inside your organization, which I fully recommend, it is likely that you a pedestal is also being built underneath you. If your profile creates support and sponsorship by senior members of your organization, then the likelihood of being knocked off is reduced, but there always remains the potential of being sniped off by a jealous boss.

If you suspect that this is the case, then you have a choice – continue as you are and live with the glory and the threat, or share your halo with your boss by ensuring that they always get 10% of the credit. (Number is arbitrary!). You do this by always mentioning their support and guidance as you achieve greatness.

You are Too Political

Politics is a banner of many behaviors, but roughly I am suggesting that your manager may get pissed off with you if you don’t consistently align with the truth and behave like ‘all things to all people’. Politics has its place, but over-emphasis on truth-economies can create distrust between you and your manager. Think about it: if they see you as a skillful player with your peers, then what do they read into your relationship?

If you’re in a politically charged environment (despite best will, this does happen) then it’s always best to disclose your political game plan with your boss. Even if they don’t play too, at least they know what you’re trying to achieve. Create a version of the truth that you both align to and will work together to achieve. Personally, I prefer work without politics, but if you must engage in politics then it’s important to have the support of your manager.

You are Not Political Enough

The flipside to the above, and probably a more likely situation. The higher you climb the pole, the greasier it gets.

Your manager may be playing many angles and operating in grey-areas to achieve an outcome… only for you to come along with an honest and transparent communication to destroy their game-plan.

My feelings towards this are clear – this is your manager’s fault and if they don’t involve you in the game (or at least tell you where the goal-posts are) then that is their problem. Nevertheless, your lack of awareness, or refusal to play, can build up bad feelings which are likely not to be expressed. Your boss’s hatred of you will seem irrational and may be sensed but not directly manifested.

There isn’t much you can do in these situations. Sometimes, a direct challenge might work but the same political behavior will be applied in your manager’s response.

Lack of Rapport

Rapport is the X-factor in a relationship. When two people have rapport, they get along very well and the relationship flourishes. This happens when you and your manager perceive situations, and people, in similar ways and you make similar decisions and judgments based on that perception. Communication is effective. There is cohesion. It’s a foundation of trust.

What about the lack of rapport? The opposite of the above is true. Relationships die at the point of inception when two people can’t communicate effectively or agree on anything. When two people have two parametrically opposite personality traits, then building rapport is almost impossible. If you are a positive person, but your boss is negative, then it will be tough. If you are introvert, but your manager is extrovert, then it will be tough. Get the picture?

I don’t recommend trying to be a person you are not, in order to overcome this. You will come unstuck at some point, and to be frank, you will be miserable and stressed. The best way forward, when faced with this problem, is to just keep working at it. A lack of rapport will diminish over time providing that you and your manager are trying to achieve the same thing. It will be a bumpy road – so expect that – but eventually it will smooth out.

You Don’t Do What Your Manager Expects You To Do

Have you become upset when a mechanic didn’t fix the problem with your car? How about when your credit card company didn’t switch off payment protection, even when you ticked the option? It’s the same when you don’t do what you said you would do. Your manager gets pissed.

In modern organizations, strategic goals are cascaded from the most senior executives to junior employees. Your manager’s objectives are dependent on you achieving your objectives… and so on. If you don’t achieve your goals, your manager doesn’t too.

Worse still, your manager’s reputation can be drawn through the mud. Your failure could be a direct hit on your boss’s credibility. If this failure is caused by forgetfulness, or bad judgment, or incompetence then you can expect your manager to be upset with you. Persistent failure like this can lead to total hatred!

A more dangerous ground to tread on is when you’re going hell for leather for a goal that is different to the one your manager expects. It’s dangerous because the point of realization that your expectations are different is towards the end of the project or assignment. You might get into this situation if you and your boss haven’t built rapport.

This situation may be a deliberate coup by your manager if they’re playing political games or if they perceive you as a threat. Unless your objectives are clearly understood in the same way between you, your manager has a ticket to call foul at any point.

Truth is, managers rarely resort to these shenanigans, but much more common is a surprise moment a long way into an assignment when both of you realize your mistake of a difference in expectation. This is why it’s vital that you and your manager agree specifics, with little (or no) room for different interpretation. Especially so if your performance management, and your bonus, depends upon it.

I believe that total alignment of expectations is the only way to avoid pissing off your boss, and indeed achieving what they expect from you. I recommend you take a look at your current assignments now and check with your manager that your intended output is what he or she expects.

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

I’ve written before that if management was a true science, then there wouldn’t be so many books on the subject. Do a search on Amazon for management and you’ll see thousands of books on the subject. How do you pick books when there are so many to choose from?

Hopefully, I’ll give you a start. I’ve just read ‘Lead Well and Prosper ‘ by Nick McCormick – 15 successful strategies for becoming a good manager.

It’s unique: you’ll find non-fiction punctuated by fictional episodes for a high-impact effect, and this is what makes this book special.

Each of the successful strategies is articulated using extremes. Using fictional characters (such as Joe Kerr, the spiteful asshole-boss (perhaps Juan Kerr would have been a better name!), and Wanda B. Goode, the progressive professional with halo), Nick uses these extreme behaviors to illustrate how people behave in the workplace, and how a manager’s modus operandi have a stifling and degenerative effect on their reports. The extremes serve as a humorous yet poignant perspective on the way people really do behave in the workplace – I bet you recognize yourself at both extremes if you look back on your career!

The conversations between the characters is farcical, yes, but reflective of the conversations that go on inside the heads of people as they interact to go achieve their professional goals. The farce is grounded in the reality of human behavior.

Each chapter addresses a strategy (behavior). It begins with the ‘conversation’ which stirs up the reader’s emotions to understand what each strategy addresses. Then, Nick gives us commentary on the behavior and how the strategy is an appropriate solution. Each chapter is then concluded with a list of things to do and not to do in order to achieve the strategy, and a list of easily actionable steps to take. It’s a powerful writing technique.

The strategies are:

1. Adopt a Serving Attitude
2. Teach
3. Provide Honest and Timely Feedback
4. Share Information
5. Listen
6. Treat People Like Human Beings
7. Set Goals, Plan and Execute
8. Learn
9. Do the Right Thing
10. Embrace the Uncomfortable
11. Clean Up Your Own House First
12. Persist
13. Do What You Say Will Do
14. Always Follow Up
15. Plan Your Week

The chapter I found the most powerful and motivational is 10) Embrace the Uncomfortable; this is an eye-opener. I see folks in the workplace NOT doing this, and to some extent, I see it in myself. At times, we all avoid pain in order for an ‘easy’ time – but guess what – we just store up trouble and then have to deal with it when the pain is much worse. In fact I will be publishing an article on this very subject soon (subscribe to my RSS feed so you will know when!)

The book is short, just 93 pages, but don’t see that as a negative. This book is short, and sweet . It’s brevity is what gives it its freshness and page-turn appeal. It doesn’t assume too much about its reader, other than that they want to learn and grow.

This book isn’t just for managers or leaders. It’s not even just for people who want to become a manager or leader. This book addresses challenges that we all face in the workplace, so I think any professional in any industry will enjoy it and put it to good use.

By now, I hope I’ve convinced you that this is a unique book. It stands out from the other management books I’ve read over the years! Lead Well and Prosper is a bargain at only $14.95 , available from Amazon. Order today and you’ll get it tomorrow!

Buy This Book Today : Lead Well and Prosper: 15 Successful Strategies for Becoming a Good Manager

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

As soon as the word bad boss is mentioned most people start imagining pictures of a wicked person, a crook, a tyrant, a scheming backstabbing individual, a selfish ogre, etc. And typical textbook definitions of a bad boss is one who screams, threatens, intimidates, grabs credit, fires people, throttles people’s necks and so on. While this could be true in some cases, it is not so in a large percentage of cases. Actually it is not necessary to be a wicked person at all to be called a bad boss. Ironically, a good natured or normal person can also fall under the category of a bad boss without exhibiting the standard underhand or bullying behaviors. Here are a few common mistakes good people do to slowly transform themselves into bad bosses:

Lack of Knowledge: A good person can become a manager of a department for various reasons, but may have no knowledge necessary to run the department. Often many employees get promoted to stratospheric levels too fast, but without the required knowledge, maturity or skills to run a bunch of diverse departments. And this is unavoidable in many cases as managers often have to swim in un-chartered waters in today’s chaotic business world. However, this can become a catastrophe not only for the manager but to all his peers and team members who look towards them for guidance, help or coaching. If managers lack the required knowledge and advisory skills to coach, mentor and supervise their department they can agitate their team members to death. In addition to stressing their team members daily, managers will stress themselves more as they will be unable to lead effectively. For example, a good person can be a car service supervisor, but can never effectively manage his mechanics if he himself does not have prior experience in servicing a car, or at least a generous dose of the practical hardships of it. His lack of knowledge can often lead to conflicts as he may make unrealistic demands on his mechanics, commit to impractical requests by customers, overload his mechanics, etc. Soon it will become a ego conflict between the “Knowledgeable and the Clueless.”

Avoiding learning: It is understandable that a manager cannot be expected to have an accurate knowledge from day one. To gain knowledge one must get into deep water to understand the nitty-gritties of a new department’s work, irrespective of their earlier experience. And no matter which department you manage there will be some amount of new learning every day to keep abreast of latest trends and happenings related to that particular industry. But too many managers avoid doing this and don’t make any effort to learn the work hands on, or at least an essential percentage of it. They never bother to understand the “Nuts and bolts” or roll up their sleeves to get involved. Instead they run their departments from a high level by viewing the world through status reports, metrics, statistical gymnastics, asking tough questions, etc., and soon become an object of ridicule. Very soon this will lead to problems like inaccurate estimation, procrastination, unable to take independent decisions, workload issues, staff shortages, endless meetings, email wars, improper budgeting, and various daily conflicts. By refusing to learn or get involved they distance themselves from understanding any practical issues and difficulties of a department. Instead of being in a position of confidently saying, “Let me show you how or this is how you do it,” they will start covering their lack of knowledge through devious means as they become insecure and incompetent. Obviously that means entering into dirty waters like indulging in cheap politics, surround themselves with yes men, shoot the messenger and find scapegoats.

Unable to shield their team: Often for many managers maintaining the status of a good and diplomatic person who will not antagonize customers and clients becomes more important than being right. So they may not be able to shield their team from hostile situations, unfair accusations or demands. They will start saying yes to every demand and put their team members in trouble or excessive workloads. Also they cannot take the heat for their team when required. Very soon team members will stop going to them for help like a certain Jeff Rich, the CEO of ACS says, “I think the day that your people stop bringing their problems to you is the day you stop leading. They’ve either concluded that you don’t care about their problems or that you cannot help them. And leaders have to be in a position to help.” For example, continuing the example of a mechanic, he will often not be able to shield his mechanics from aggressive and impatient customers who pressurize them with unreasonable demands, invent faults or expect unrealistic services.

Distorted view: Customers and clients don’t appreciate a plain exhibition of good nature. Just because a person is good, customers will not take things easily or dilute their demands. They need value for their money, solutions, answers, guidance, etc., for their problems. A good nature and lots of smiles cannot be used as a shield for delivering bad results. And if a person cannot provide that, he or she automatically becomes a bad manager. For example, will you go to a doctor who is very friendly, but is unable to diagnose your fever or prescribe the right medicines? Will junior surgeons depend on a friendly senior surgeon who cannot teach or oversee complicated and delicate surgeries? Would you go to a lawyer who talks well, but gives you bad legal advice? Would you go to or recommend a tax consultant who talks well, but can’t give you proper tax advice? Similarly a good natured person who is unable to help customers, clients and team members can get into trouble by being branded as a bad manager as their credibility will take a nosedive.

Finally we can conclude this article with a quote from Thomas Arnold, “Real knowledge, like everything else of value, is not to be obtained easily. It must be worked for, studied for, thought for, and, more than all must be prayed for.”

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

One of my more popular articles recently has been ‘12 Behaviors Most Disliked by IT Professionals ‘ in which I shared the 12 things IT professionals hated the most about their leaders. In this article, I will be addressing one of these – when the objectives of different leaders are misaligned.

I reckon this is one of the most destructive bahaviors you could find in an organization, as for most professionals, it is an impossible situation. When leaders who are also peers have different and conflicting objectives, they will behave differently and mandate instructions to subordinates that conflict, and therefore confuse, so it creates a hot-bed of politics and power-struggles that destroys productivity in the workforce.

Let me use an example. It wasn’t too long ago when I was running a change program in a Financial Services company that had a Director at the top who had been told to run programs cost effectively and reduce the number of freelancers on the team. Coming within budget was her objective . So she applied a lot of control of headcount and resourcing, which actually resulted in under-resourcing for the scope of deliverables the programs had been charged with. So, many deliverables were descoped or delayed. But this wasn’t the problem – in fact this is perhaps the best way of dealing with the situation. The problem was that a peer of the Director, who was the client and sponsor of many of the projects, was advising workers on the program to not worry about the spending, but bring in as many resources as needed. Delivery whatever the cost was his objective . The client VP is influential and pulled strings to secure the resourcing. But then there is more. Both of these guys leader was the COO, and her objective was to ensure everything was delivered and on budget. Delivery of everything to budget was her objective , given to her directly from the CEO. But the COO gave the objectives to the Director and VP, right? Well yes, but they weren’t aligned, in fact they were in conflict.

So how did this end up? Chaos, delay and low morale. The misalignment between the objectives created a lot of confusion in the workforce. The mandates filtering down from the COO were reinterpreted sometimes, sometimes not, so from day to day workers could be given very different tasks to achieve different objectives. The ultimate result was delivery of nothing, a lot of wasted money, and a disillusioned (well, pissed off) workforce.

Wait though, I am not suggesting that leaders who are peers all have to have the same objectives. No – what I am suggesting is that conflicting objectives, when delivered through the same workforce at the same time, should be avoided. It’s perfectly OK for leaders to deliver their objectives with separate teams, or at different times. The best situation is when peer objectives are complimentary, and therefore the peers really are a team, contributing to the goal of their superior but specific to their area of strength or responsibility.
Another example of where I’ve seen this go wrong is when I was briefly involved call-center software company. It was a small business (<50 people) and was led by a COO, CFO, VP of Marketing and their boss, the CEO. The company had grown quickly and had captured it’s market. In that year, the CEO had set objectives with the members of his team that were confined to a particular target, so the COO was asked to be ‘Obsesssed with service’ and the CFO was asked to be ‘Obsessed with profit’ and the Marketing guy was to be ‘Obsessed with promotion’ – pretty much nothing else mattered. Well you can imagine what happened. In such a small organization, there aren’t enough resources for separate programs or initiatives. The projects were doomed from day one to be torn way or the other whilst the Execs exerted their power and influence to focus energy and resources onto their narrow-band objective. I observed a lot of stress and towards the end a serious lack of trust and confidence in the leadership. The place was rife with disrespectful comments about the Executives. It was hell. Eventually the CEO woke up to his mistake and rectified it by creating a much more integrated set of objectives for the leadership team, who all worked towards the same balanced scorecard.

But it was too late for the IT professionals who worked there. Many had already left, and the ones that remained were suffering from low morale. I guess it took another 6 months for the organization to recover and get back on track.

Misalignment of objectives is an age-old story. There are many examples in history. Think of how Montgomery and Patton’s objectives conflicted in World War 2, resulting in lost opportunities (look it up!).
The lesson is this, make sure as a leader you and your peers are not working against each other. In fact it is not just for leaders. Any member of any team must ensure that they are working to compliment the work and purpose of their colleagues. This is the definition of a team isn’t it? Also, people with influence and in positions of power must be sure that they are not undermining the efforts of their peers and their followers.

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.