Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 17, 2011
HAVING A BAD DAY
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
PERSISTENCE AND DETERMINATION
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
GEORGE W. BUSH AS MANAGER-IN-CHIEF
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
LOUD AND CLEAR
My father has been gone for six years now. We worked together for nearly thirty years and in that time, he taught me the ins and outs of the information systems industry and the corporate world. What I particularly miss about him is the arguments we would get into. I don't mean vicious discourse but rather serious debates on a variety of topics. He had a good logical mind and we would often spar if for no other reason than to clarify an idea or concept. My dad was old school though who was of Scottish stock and came up the hard way. If you screwed up, he would let you know about it loud and clear. There was no sugarcoating a mistake with him. Over time I came to learn the reason he jumped down your throat was that he didn't want you to commit the same mistake twice, and to his credit, you wouldn't.
Some people were offended by his candor, others thrived on it as they understood the intellectual dynamics involved. Even customers would call my father to pick a friendly fight with him and, in the process, would learn a lot. I knew of other men of his generation who were also not exactly politically correct and not afraid to give it to you loud and clear. However, I think we now live in a time when such discourse is frowned upon and you don't see too much of it anymore.
People are hesitant to be critical in the work place, school, or just about everywhere. I think this is bred into people at an early age whereby everybody has to be a winner, and nobody should suffer the stigma of being labeled a loser. Consequently we become hesitant to tell someone when he is wrong in that it might hurt his feelings. The only problem here though is if everyone tells you nothing is wrong and that everything is great, you'll never get to the bottom of what is wrong. Every once and awhile you need the naked truth, and you can only get this through honest criticism.
Sugarcoating a problem only delays its resolution thereby costing more money to correct or allowing someone to commit a mistake repetitively. If you give it to them loud and clear, they may not like how you said it, but they will most assuredly comprehend what you meant and will not forget it. One point to make in this regard, when you are criticizing or arguing with someone, simple "yes" and "no's" are not sufficient. It is vital you explain your rationale, otherwise they will remain skeptical and learn nothing.
Perhaps the biggest problem with honest criticism is to learn not to take it personally. The "loud and clear" person is trying to teach you something and obviously thinks it is important for you to learn it properly which is why you are getting it loud and clear. I realize we are supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of others, but we must understand that conducting business does not involve participating in a personality contest. Sometimes, to get the necessary results, a manager needs to get into a worker's face and talk to him heart to heart. We would make little progress if we had to constantly hold the hands of our workers. At some point, the training wheels have to come off and they have to drive the bicycle themselves.
Years ago, when I first volunteered to be a Little League umpire, I had to attend a clinic to learn the duties and responsibilities of the job. At the time I was only signing up to umpire eight year old girls softball which I didn't exactly consider a heavy duty assignment. The instructors of the clinic taught us a lot of things, but one thing they emphasized was to make your calls "loud and clear" regardless of the age of the kids or sex. A watered-down call or one without authority will challenge your credibility not only with the coaches, but with the players as well. Basically, they were saying, "If you're going to do something, do it right." As I was quick to learn, this was perhaps the best advice I could have received. Consequently, I rendered my calls as umpire "loud and clear." Interestingly, I discovered even the youngest kid on the team seemed to instinctively understand what I was doing and respected the call. In all the years I umpired, not once was a tear shed.
For those of you who believe loud and clear is "not cool" in the workplace, you have to remember we live in a fast paced world and managers do not always have the time or luxury to patiently offer tender and sympathetic advice. Honest criticism is a fact of life and a necessity for us to grow and evolve, and we should certainly not be embarrassed to receive it "loud and clear."
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
THE HASSLE OF METAL KEYS
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
FLATTENING GOVERNMENT
People in the Capital are only now beginning to realize the size of the federal government is too massive and thereby contributing to our deficit. The president has ordered wage freezes to which I say, "So what?" as it is only a temporary solution. Even the president's debt reduction commission has come to the realization the government is simply too big. To illustrate, from the commission's "Moment of Truth" report: "Washington needs to learn to do more with less, using fewer resources to accomplish existing goals without risking a decline in essential government services." The report goes on to suggest trimming the government's work force by 10% and budget by 15%. No doubt this will save money, but it is only a guess as to how much to trim. I contend they could trim as much as 25% or more of the work force and still provide adequate government service.
First, you have to recognize the federal government is a perfect example of Parkinson's Law whereby "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." I tend to see Air Force One as an example of this. True, it is an opulent icon of our country, but is the extravagance really worth it? According to U.S. military estimates, the total operating cost to fly Air Force One is $181,757 per hour. I'm told this does not include other travel expenses, such as maintaining backup aircraft and helicopters, or transporting the president's motorcade. Undeniably, this is more expensive than the days of the old Boeing 707s, but then again there were fewer people involved. As Air Force One got bigger, Parkinson's Law kicked in and the president's entourage grew radically. If the plane was smaller, fewer people would obviously accompany the president.
Air Force One is but one small example. All three branches of government are undoubtedly bloated. How much though? We can only guess. Unlike a commercial enterprise, government is rarely, if ever, trimmed of fat.
Back in the 1990's Jack Welch embarked on a program to flatten corporate behemoth General Electric to rid the company of waste and get it to operate on a leaner and more productive level. One by one he patiently waded through the many divisions of G.E. and flattened them down to size thereby earning him the nickname "Neutron Jack."
Welch used a "three purge" approach to flatten each division. The first purge was used to eliminate the dead wood everyone knew existed and were glad to rid themselves of. However, in the second pass, everyone began to feel the pinch as some clerical staff members were eliminated, thereby forcing managers to devise imaginative ways to accomplish the work without such assistance. The third purge was the hardest as key people were eliminated or forced to retire, but it was Welch's intent to find out what exactly made the division work and only by flattening it could this become apparent. Now, with a leaner and meaner operation in place, Welch could vividly see what was working profitably and what wasn't thereby allowing him to make informed strategic decisions about the company.
Basically, Welch's approach tackled Parkinson's Law head on, something that has not happened at the federal government level. It has been speculated that Welch's tactics were based on Russian dictator Joseph Stalin who executed bloody purges in his country multiple times in the 1930's. One by one, Stalin purged each government and political body methodically, using the Army as his muscle. Not surprising, the Army was purged last using Stalin's secret police. This happened not just once, but twice. Although Stalin's motives were entirely different than Welch's, his tactics didn't go unnoticed.
Bottom-line, having the debt reduction commission suggest the federal government should be trimmed by 10% is plain and simply a wild guess and not based on any credible facts. Only a purge approach a la Welch (and not Stalin) would tell us just how fat our government truly is.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 11:30am (Eastern).
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 3, 2011
CULTURAL ASSIMILATION
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.