I just gave my employer 40 hours (5 working days) that I can never get back. My sentence: Manditory supervisory training. The upside: It gave me a lot of time to contemplate my “philosophy” of management . . . and occasionally discuss it with the class.
After my first class discussion, the instructor wondered if I had been forced to take the class in an attempt to “reprogram” me. I assured him that I was there because it was manditory for all new supervisors. Two of my friends (also new supervisors) were also in the class.
The instructor — Phil — had a very literal, bureaucratic interpretation of supervision. As an example, he expounded on the need for strict observance to working hours, and that any deviation should be dealt with immediately. Basically, we were encouraged to harass all employees to protect the agency and ourselves from the problem employees. One stated principle: If one employee doesn’t behave properly, it destroys the morale of everyone.
My previous concept of supervision was much simpler: Treat your colleagues like adults and provide them with a healthy work environment. Set productivity standards high. (I personally place a high value on creativity (problem solving). I like colleagues who are willing to continually push the envelope as it relates to solutions to professional problems.) Reward those who are highly productive. Assist those who need encouragement.
The Federal concept of supervision, as expounded in the training, is much more narrow and literal. Much of it deals with outward appearances. These concern me less than the effort my colleagues put into their jobs. I greatly respect my current collection of colleagues. They are all highly motivated and good people. I would like to stay out of their way as long as they continue to function at a high level.
With the new tools provided by the “Information Age”, it is much easier to flourish in an unstructured work environment. The agency I work for, in the name of security, has chosen to largely outlaw these tools. But eventually they will come around. Its difficult to be a neo-luddite forever. With these new tools, increasing the productivity of disparate work groups will be much easier. Extreme top-down forms of supervision and management will no longer be justified. I guess I’m arguing for a more bottom-up approach to management and perhaps a small venture into anarchical principles.
Somehow I need to wed my agency’s policies with my personal beliefs. Is that doable? I hope so.
The following appeared in BYU/Magazine (Summer 2009) in an article written by Arthur C. Brooks: “Now I knew from teaching at a business school that the best way to run a successful business was to hire happy people. If you want a productive person, work on your happiness. Happy people show up for work more, work longer hours, work more joyfully, and are happier with every aspect of their productive lives. Happiness is the secret to success. . . .” It would seem that if you inherit an employee, working on his happiness should be critical!
I think the Brooks quote is a little too easy. It certainly would be a perfect world if all we had to do was “work on his/her happiness”. Unfortunately, sometimes no matter what you do you cannot “make” someone be happy. Likewise, some employees thrive on structure, including militaristic, set hours and rules. Although I knew that this training may have been a bit hard for you, I did not realize it would be so painful. Hopefully your next supervisory training can be a bit more relaxed…
My supervisory training was more cathartic than painful. It forced me to come to grips with my own philosophy of management and supervision . . . and its limitation. Its would appear that the Federal model and my own philosophy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Hopefully reality lies somewhere in the middle (hopefully closer to my extreme than the Federal). I think the Federal model is too top-down and too militaristic, and doesn’t consider modern technology.
You are interpreting happiness wrong. I think a happy employee is one that is empowered and has the tools to get the job done. A happy employee is one that is recognized for his good performance, and counseled in a friendly environment when there are issues. A happy employee is a person who is treated like an adult. Obviously not all individuals can survive in such an environment, but you would certain hope that professionals can.
I still think “happiness” is more within. Even those who are treated like adults determine their own happiness. I know that in all my years of supervising, sometimes you bend over backwards and still that employee is not “happy”. You have been fortunate in that your series and supervision have involved those who are higher-graded, and certainly more professional. I have admired your ability to treat all with dignity and respect, lower and/or higher graded. I just question whether you can truly make everyone happy. It seems impossible.
I don’t propose to make everyone happy. But I would like to provide a work environment that maximizes the opportunities for personal growth and happiness. At least for those who are self-motivated. For the rest, hopefully they can find a better job that makes them happy. If somebody suffers from clinical depression, then hopefully I can be a part of the solution. If someone is lazy, then I guess the Federal training explained how to deal with that. But you are right, I am lucky, I have a very motivated staff of highly-trained professional.
The following is Time Magazine’s (15 Feb 2010, p. 12) review of the book “Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard” by Chip and Dan Heath:
” . . . engage with emotions, not just brains. Consider the ironfisted accountant at the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services who wreaked havoc on nonprofit partners by withholding funds unless forms were filed perfectly. When his boss forced him to visit some of the group homes the department funded, he saw the specific kids being helped–not to mention the pandemonium that often rules–and started figuring out ways to work with the nonprofits instead of antagonizing the.”