Synopsis of the book: Alexander Fridman - you or you are the professional exploitation of subordinates. Alexander Fridman - You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader

At first, she intrigued me a lot. She promised to answer very important questions for me. After 50 pages, I was disappointed - the book does not disclose or not fully disclose the answers to these questions. So I don't recommend reading it.

But she very well made me think for myself, compare different views, prompted many thoughts. It often happens that you read a book, and suddenly you realize what was written in another book, read 2 years ago.

This is one big advertisement for Alexander Fridman's trainings. There are a lot of very beautiful and smart arguments about the benefits of management theory, about the need to constantly learn, and about the fact that with due diligence and openness to the new, management skills are available to everyone. But the theory itself is not revealed! It is written only about how good it is, and that every self-respecting leader is obliged to study. Constant "work with objections" of the reader is conducted. Sad and painful pictures of the failure to properly study the theory of management are constantly drawn. There is pressure on all the pain points and calluses of a typical leader. And through the page, as if in passing, but with enviable persistence, it is mentioned that the author conducts trainings.

True, they say that his training is really good.

It's like an advertising YouTube channel for a company that performs repair or construction work. It is necessary to do so in order to attract attention by telling supposedly useful information, but at the same time, it is necessary to tell those things in order to give nothing to competitors, and thirdly, it is necessary to make sure that, based on the result of watching all the videos, the client still cannot do this job without you!

After watching at least 100 videos from such a channel, you will understand this:
"I learned a lot of interesting little tricks of building a cottage. But I still have no idea how to build it myself!!! Moreover: my insecurities have only increased: now I see how many different little things you can go wrong! Oh I don't know how many yet!!! It looks like these guys (the authors of the channel) know how to build a cottage, since they talk about it so much!

I liked the description that the same manifestations can be regarded differently depending on whether success is achieved:

Much has been said about the role of the individual in history. But it seems to me that the assessment of certain qualities of this very personality essentially depends on the mood of the audience at the current moment or on the obvious results. So, at the start of the certification of a future candidate, when everyone is full of hope or when a newly appointed CEO leads the company to rapid success, such qualities as toughness, determination and risk-taking are presented as positive and worthy of every kind of imitation.

Minor roughnesses, if not hushed up, are presented as reserves for growth or as circumstances that have not yet been covered by the beneficial influence of the newly-minted leader. If the company has not demonstrated radical success, then the same character traits are already presented as obvious reasons for the collapse: they say that the decisions were too risky, and the resignation of the members of the old team was in vain, and the new leader pushed people away with his rigidity.

And if a decision is made to replace a player on the field, it often turns out that all the results previously noted as positive were achieved not at all thanks to, but, on the contrary, despite the activities of the disgraced leader, and even by other people.

Operating system 1. "Directive management"

Definition: "I'm the boss, you're the fool!".
Subordinates must do what and how the leader determines. The blame for the lack of results is not placed on the subordinate, unless he deviated one iota from the order received.

The basis of success: the unquestioning execution of the orders of the head, the exclusion of all types of resistance from subordinates, the absence of prerequisites and opportunities for non-fulfillment of any of the parameters of work tasks.

Advantages: speed of decision-making due to centralization, high manageability, good discipline, inviolability of the leader's power.

Disadvantages: a drop in the speed of decision-making as the structure grows, a high probability of fatal managerial errors, a low degree of use of human potential, the need for favorable external conditions.

Limitations: complete dependence on the leader's innate dictatorial talent, reduced manageability in accordance with the "square of distance" from the dictator and an increase in the scale of the business, the associated limited opportunities for the development of the structure.

The prevailing types of subordinates: psychologically dependent, non-competitive in the labor market, unprofessional. If the dictator is a Great Master, then those pragmatists who are ready to learn from him, albeit at the cost of humiliation, are added to this list, perceiving this as a challenge and a useful experience for subsequent career growth or organizing their own business.

Operating system 2. "Manipulation management" (In OJSC "NIPOM" - such)

Definition: "What are you, my dear?!" Subordinates are always to blame for something. If they started to do it without a command - in arbitrariness. They did not start - in the absence of initiative. We got the result - why so small? They didn't get it - why, when all the resources were provided to them? The instructions are deliberately vague. One work can be assigned to different performers, without indicating their mutual powers and without informing at all about the fact of parallel work. They can answer a direct question: “Think for yourself, what are you paid for?”

The basis of success: super profits through the use of "holes" in laws and regulations, violations of all types of internal and external obligations, methods of harsh / fraud-based exploitation of personnel.

Advantages: high, albeit short-term, returns on human potential, high sustainability due to the centralization of all types of authority, high growth rate during periods of instability, the ability to “redeal the deck” or “change the game table” in a timely manner, willingness to take risks, high (due to willingness to ignore obligations) the speed of corporate transformation.

Disadvantages: bad reputation, frequent change of a significant part of the staff, weak resistance to tough and systemic competition, high dependence on favorable external conditions, the need for constant struggle with those of the subordinates who strive to deceive the structure itself, gaining their share of happiness.

Limitations: complete dependence on the level of the leader's innate puppet talent, reduced manageability in accordance with the "square of distance" from the puppeteer and growth in the scale of the business, associated with this limited opportunities for the development of the structure.

The prevailing types of subordinates: psychologically dependent, non-competitive in the labor market, unprofessional. Professional, but at the same time gullible, naive and beautiful-hearted, who believe in promises and manage to raise the structure well until the moment of complete disappointment and final insight. Cynics, who every day are given the opportunity to visually verify the correctness of their own position in life.

Operating system 3. "Improvisational management" (In LLC "Sports attractions" - such)

Definition: "Take more, throw more!" Subordinates are expected to be quick-witted, initiative, enterprising, quick, and preferably complete synchronization of thinking with the leader. It is necessary to guess what, when and how to do it, since there is no systematic problem setting at all. For erroneous, but quick actions, they are rarely punished, everything is attributed to circumstances. Results are richly rewarded. They are fired for persistent attempts to clarify the parameters of the work assignment, which is often mistaken for stupidity.

The basis of success: anticipating market needs, identifying unoccupied and potentially attractive business segments, flexibility in response.

Advantages: high decision-making speed, willingness to take risks, involvement and cohesion of staff, good use of human potential, readiness to change activities, rapid change in work technologies, creative atmosphere.

Disadvantages: poor manageability, chaotic work performance, lack of systematic processes, the predominance of strategy over tactics and the generation of new ideas over the optimization of old ones, a tendency to test ideas by action to the detriment of preliminary analysis, the high cost of business processes, a tendency to eliminate problems that have arisen to the detriment of their prevention .

Constraints: Low sustainability as business scales up and/or competition intensifies/systematizes, and demand declines. The need for extensive growth opportunities to cover the high cost of internal processes.

Dominant types of subordinates: enthusiasts, jack-of-all-trades, charismatics, chameleons/fraudsters.

Definition: "Everything that is done is written down, everything that is written down is done." Setting goals, final and intermediate results, the content of work and methods of their implementation, points and forms of control / coordination, types and reasons for rewards / punishments are formalized, implemented and sold to subordinates.

The basis of success: a unified understanding of the expected results and methods for achieving them, the early and accurate organization of the necessary actions with optimal control and timely correction of the implementation process.

Advantages: high return on human potential, stability in the short and long term, low dependence on favorable external conditions, the possibility of long-term planning of all types of resources, low personal dependence due to reliance on work technologies, and not on the ability of employees.

Disadvantages: the high cost of the structure, less (compared to other systems) flexibility and response speed, the complexity of the corporate governance system, the slow implementation of corporate transformations, unwillingness to take risks and act in conditions of high uncertainty.

Constraints: the need for universal, regardless of hierarchy, compliance with the same paradigms. This feature is more annoying for those leaders who perceive their position as a worthy reward for their successes and believe that now they can relax.

Predominant types of subordinates: professionals who are competitive in the labor market and are interested in continuing their careers and/or self-development.

Imagine that you have acquired the most modern echo sounder and solemnly dragged it to your rowing galley. You can easily foresee that you will encounter a number of purely technological problems. On the one hand, this does not refute the fundamental usefulness of the device, on the other hand, it does not allow us to derive any benefit from it in a realistically predictable future. Most likely, you will solemnly install this device in a place of honor, oblige subordinates to wipe dust from it and proudly show it to guests.

So it all boils down to: First standardize, then optimize!

Conclusion:

I thought I had finally found the best book of my life, but no. The book is intriguing but doesn't give the full picture. So I feel like I will have to take the advice of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu: "If you have not found a book that you would like to read, then write it yourself."

Ratings:

Increase in general outlook: 4/5

Practical use: 2/5

Drive while reading: 3/5

to whom: business owners, management, department heads

Briefly about the author and the book

Alexander Fridman is a well-known consultant in the field of strategic development and increasing the efficiency of a commercial company. Owner of own business since 1988.

The book "You or you. Professional exploitation of subordinates” is a fundamental work on how to put things in order in your organization. There are not only ready-made recipes, but also technologies.

When mastering the technology, the leader will independently develop his own recipes in a specific situation. This is a very important skill, because there are a finite number of ready-made recipes, and an infinite number of managerial situations.

The inattention of the leader leads to a lack of control in the organization

The consequences of the manager's inattention to the violation of the established rules by his subordinates will not keep you waiting. Here they are:

• Subordinates are constantly probing the field of power around them in order to check: maybe this or that rule is not necessary to follow at all? And what happens if you break a little? How about a joke? And if on Friday morning or Wednesday afternoon?
• If the control system did not properly respond to the violation of the rule, then this information is diligently recorded by the subordinate.
• As the gaps discovered in the field of power grow, the negligence of subordinates grows. The more rules you can break, the less you want to follow the rest.
• If the management system cannot cope with the violation of its own rules, then this clearly demonstrates to all participants not only the weakness of power, but also the fact that the rules can be violated in principle.
• If you can break the rules, then why do you need to comply with agreements, try, make efforts? Why is it necessary to complete the task in all respects and in due time? Why do you need to complete this task at all? Why bother remembering details?
• Subordinates begin to divide the rules into mandatory and optional, guided by their personal motives.
• The structure becomes poorly managed, a large managerial backlash appears.

And what to do with all this? If you want to find the answer - read the book by Alexander Friedman. Upgrade your leadership skills. Everyone will benefit from this: you, the business and the workers among your employees.

"Chiefs" can be called any person who has subordinates. In order to become a leader, it is enough to occupy the appropriate position. "Leader" is appropriate to consider only those who know how to manage subordinates. … after gaining the high title of “leader”, the nature of the work of a specialist by default changes significantly. Now his main task is not to do the work himself, but to ensure that others do it.

… where does profit come from, if not from surplus value? And how to get surplus value, if not through exploitation?

… as a leader, you can easily access the expertise of your subordinates, your authority does not suffer from this.

As you move up the career ladder, the importance of qualifications in the specifics of business decreases, while the importance of managerial qualifications, on the contrary, increases ... Alas, we often try to develop success only by repeating those actions that previously led to a positive result, not realizing that the game has changed.

Management is always innovative, as it brings new goals or requirements to the work situation. Therefore, management is initially hostile, confrontational in relation to the stability achieved by subordinates and the harmony that has developed at this moment between the efforts expended and the results obtained.

... "objects" usually move under the influence of external pressure. And "subjects" - to their goals.

The one who made a mistake should not regret it, but should correct it.

The one who has not made mistakes is dangerous, but even more dangerous is the one who does not correct his mistakes, finding thousands of reasons for this. A master of making excuses will not become a master of anything else.

From the book of the great samurai of the XVIII century. Yamamoto Tsunetomo "Hakagure" ("Hidden in the leaves")
The vast majority of novice leaders in the process of overcoming the resistance of subordinates choose one of two wrong scenarios: "immersion in work", "pacification of the recalcitrant".

If you are a big boss: you should prepare well in advance and professionally for the transfer of a manager to a managerial position, on your own or with the help of internal or external HR specialists, when planning a managerial career for a manager, you should provide preliminary psychological preparation, explaining the difference in the content of work and possible changes in the behavior of his subordinates and before appointing a manager to the position of a leader, it is advisable to teach him all the intricacies of a new profession, keep in mind that after taking office, a new leader needs friendly and professional support, otherwise you will not only burn resources for nothing and deal with unexpected difficulties, but also spoil the reputation of the company as an employer .

If you are planning your career, try to get the support you need, both before you start and after you take office.

In order for a business to be effective, managers must have high managerial competence. It is on this that the competitiveness of the company depends.

Business and management is a one way road. Whoever embarked on this path must be prepared for the fact that it will not get easier. Every day, the leader has to solve more and more tasks, and more and more complex ones.

Let's say your structure evolves from a six-oared yawl to a trireme. What to do in this case? Increase the number of rows of oars to five? Until eight? Or maybe the oars as a resource have exhausted themselves and it is already necessary to set sails or even a diesel engine?

And will you continue to survey the surroundings from under the palm of your hand or will you get a modern radar? By the way, maybe leave the oars all the same? Suddenly come in handy when there is calm or when, for example, coal runs out? Or liquidate? And what to do with the best rowers who do not want to be retrained as stokers? Leave them a couple of oars so they don't get fired? I wonder what to connect the purchased diesel engine and the ultra-modern radar to? By themselves, they don't solve anything.

It is the various designs of the corporate governance system that primarily distinguish companies from each other.

Key questions:
Are there required results?
Have they been achieved with due rationality?
Thus, we have two criteria:
effectiveness;
efficiency.

And, if these parameters are absent, is it appropriate for us to reason like this: “I worked hard and diligently. I didn't get the result. I am not guilty"? Does a person who spends a lot of time hammering nails with a broom deserve respect? Even though he does it very diligently.

Can management theory be used in practice? … it is considered good manners in the business community to be skeptical about management theory. If we use the attitude to management theory as a criterion, then among the leaders we can distinguish several main types: a nugget, a patriot, an expert on the issue, a hedgehog in the fog, a pill seeker, an impressed idealist, an enlightened skeptic, an advanced user.

What prevents to master the theory of management. Obstacles:
High level of uncertainty
Lack of a unified conceptual system
Too much pragmatism. The leader is trying to get an answer to a specific question and neglects what he mistakenly considers to be abstract knowledge.
Lack of synergies. The leader needs to remember firmly: there are no formulas at the top! This phrase is rumored to be attributed to Mc'Kinsey. Apparently, it should be understood as follows: in life in general, and in management in particular, there are no ready-made solutions. Any attempt to find the right recipe - in the form of "Five Steps to Success" or "Nine Steps to True Greatness" - is doomed to failure. How useful do you think a compass or even a satellite positioning system would be to you if you don't know geography? But information about the cardinal points, as well as about meridians and parallels, may well seem to you abstract knowledge ... Having studied the principles and methods, we get the opportunity to independently receive an answer to any question that life puts before us. In trying to find an answer to a specific practical question, we get only advice of dubious quality, which probably does not take into account the fullness of the situation.

An aberration of consciousness ... sustainable success - not to be confused with luck - we will not see until we begin to treat management as a profession!

At hand, our leaders always have three seemingly reliable resources, with the help of which they try to deal with various managerial collisions:
An experience.
Common sense. Einstein formulated it this way: “Modern man cannot solve the problems that have arisen before him if he remains at the level of their occurrence.” In other words, in order to solve problems, it is necessary to rise to a higher methodological level. As a rule, guided solely by common sense, a person cannot go beyond what lies at arm's length and what his eyes see. If a leader relies solely on his common sense, only on the facts and patterns known to him, then his vision of the situation and, accordingly, the methods for resolving it will always be overly simplistic.
Intuition... of the three possible ways to comprehend the essence of phenomena, the intuitive way is the most initial. A holistic view of the object, in general, is present, but not realized in all the necessary completeness. This is followed by the analytical method, which involves the division of a large problem into smaller ones. This requires conscious comprehension and purposeful structuring of any information. The disadvantages of this method include the possible loss of connections between parts of the whole and the inability to understand the whole situation if it has to be recreated in parts, “from below”. Conceptual or systemic thinking is considered to be the pinnacle of mastery. This method of cognition combines the advantages of both intuition and analytics. The first place is given to the totality of those properties of the whole that are not manifested in its individual parts. In this case, a holistic view of the object is not only present, but also realized. The systemic level of thinking can be reached only by knowledge of the theory.

Albert Einstein said that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. The theory of management, management will never provide ready-made solutions for your managerial problems ... theory will not give you simple solutions to complex issues. Don't forget about Ashby's law... theory will allow you to anticipate developments and respond to weak signals. The result is optimal and timely, without torment and heroism, impact on the situation. The one who knows only the right decision is the eternal hostage of the situation, while the one who knows the principles can shape these situations by controlling reality.

Sun Tzu points out five qualities that a commander should possess, or, in our opinion, a leader: intelligence, justice, humanity, masculinity, rigor. In favor of the need for these qualities, the following arguments are given:

If the commander has no mind, he cannot evaluate the enemy and develop the necessary tactics.

If he does not have justice, he cannot order others and lead his subordinates.

If he does not have humanity, he cannot attract the masses to himself and bind his warriors to himself.

If he does not have courage, he cannot decide on any action and join the battle.

If he is not strict, he will not be able to subdue the strong and control the masses.

... it is worth deciding on the minimum without which it is impossible to become a successful leader, sorry for being categorical. Let's agree on some conditions.

We do not confuse success and luck.

We understand that systemic success can only be based on professionalism.

In order to successfully manage subordinates, the leader must necessarily possess two qualities: openness of thinking, perseverance.

It is generally accepted that the widely used phrase "I can't..." should actually be understood as "I don't want to because...". The readiness for continuous development of professionalism and hard work mean much more than some innate predisposition for the formation of managerial qualifications. One of the problems is that, having reached a certain position, a person tends to somewhat reduce the requirements for himself. Such a position, of course, is not fixed by the level of logic, but rather is present in the form of a subconscious attitude. The leader, as it were, says to himself: “Ugh, now you can relax a little!” This is where the character comes to the rescue, to which you can write off everything in which the leader is incompetent and / or inclined to be satisfied with the already achieved level. In words, we are still ready to properly declare the need for the tireless development of mastery, as well as to actively encourage others to do so.

... instead of talking about "suitable" or "inappropriate" types of character, let's remember:
there are no absolutely bad, as well as absolutely good, qualities;
any conscious quality is a resource, as it allows you to manage it;
any unconscious or ignored quality is a problem, as it will definitely manifest itself at the most inopportune moment.
…who usually causes us the most sympathy? That's right - a double. And vice versa, a subordinate who knows how to do what we intuitively consider to be our weakness, or who is inclined to get results by other methods, often causes irritation and a desire to correct, straighten, at best - to advise.

Sun Tzu wrote: "Invincibility lies in oneself, the possibility of victory depends on the enemy." In this stratagem, both the goal and the path to its achievement are merged. Yes, we can talk about "dao", about the path. "Ways of the Warrior"

Leaders must learn. Learn constantly. Learn in different places and in different ways. Learn all your life from your own and other people's mistakes, learn from your competitors. Learn from those who really know something. Study, if not because you like it, then because it is the only way to success. Continuous development of managerial skills is not a diet, but a way of life. Unfortunately, in real life it is always “out of focus”.

Karl Popper identified two types of approaches to knowledge acquisition: bucket and searchlight. The essence of the "bucket" approach: our consciousness is a "tub" into which information and facts of the real world penetrate through the senses; all this is somehow “digested” in the brain and becomes knowledge.

The essence of the "searchlight" approach: objective knowledge cannot be based on experience alone; objective knowledge can emerge as a result of critical reflection and practical testing of the correctness of various assumptions. In this case, the theory (assumptions and postulates) acts as an intellectual "spotlight" with which you illuminate your goals; the growth of objective knowledge is directly related both to the systematic nature of obtaining information, and to the intensity of its critical comprehension and replacement with new ones that are more satisfying for practical purposes.

In any training, three stages must be distinguished: perception (as a rule, a good “new” does not cancel the “old”, but complements or turns it so that you can see some new perspectives and expand the possibilities of technology), understanding, revision.

The master is not the one who has reached the top, but the one who is always on the way, realizing that the top is unattainable. The meaning is in a purposeful and uniform movement, and there are no limits to the development of skill.

... to understand what a person really thinks, it is enough to follow what he does. And stop paying attention to his declarative statements that he makes in order to conform to positive social stereotypes.

Why do people who voluntarily decide to acquire knowledge refuse to use it:
Fear of real change. The leader thinks: “Horror! It turns out that if you want to change the behavior of your subordinates, you have to start with yourself! Who would have thought?! After all, I'm fine, it's their actions that need to be corrected. Where are my habits?
Viscosity of habits
Closet stuffed
Tasty and healthy
Volume without system. Many books and seminars on management give their listeners some amount of knowledge, but do not give a system.
Always keep in mind that consistency, calmness, perseverance, consistency, as well as readiness to analyze and correct your actions are much more important than decisiveness and vigor.

In order to become a successful professional, you need to follow the "path of a warrior", constantly improving your managerial skills.

The "Way of the Warrior" requires purposeful efforts - only positive intentions are not enough, and the natural, "barrel" way is not to stand on it.

In order to learn correctly, and not just absorb information, it is necessary to consciously go through three stages: “perception”, “comprehension” and “revision”.

We must remember that new techniques are not a diet, but a lifestyle. They should become an organic part of your activities, and not be classified as special events.

There are a number of obstacles that prevent us from using new knowledge in practice; you should be able to recognize them, bypass them, and if you hit them, get out.

The warrior himself chooses the place and time of the battle.

It can be a pleasure to constantly develop your skills if you really understand the importance of this and the expediency of following the "path of the warrior."

The presence of discomfort and internal displeasure indicates a lack of understanding of the correctness of the chosen path.

On the "path of the warrior" there are traps waiting for you that you can overcome if you really want to.

Power provides the possibility of obtaining the optimal result, but by no means guarantees it.

Power functions:

Formation of paradigms. The death of a system consisting of individuals with free will occurs in the following order: ideology-paradigms-relationships-actions. In the same sequence, the system is configured, respectively. In general, few people argue with this, but in life, as a rule, three main approaches prevail: (i) Everything is clear anyway ... if something important does not happen formally, it should be considered that this does not happen at all; (ii) It's all about the money ... forget that a professional can earn about the same amount of money in any one of at least ten companies. Would you like this professional to work for you? So get him interested! (iii) Mold control ...according to M. Zhvanetsky, "to effectively fight mold, ignoring dampness"...

Installing the rules … you can gradually reduce the degree of rejection by the majority of any rules in general, which we inherited from Soviet times. To do this, you need to regularly and publicly abolish the rules that impede the achievement of the goals, and show how the remaining rules contribute to the achievement of these goals.

Enforcement of the rules… the wrong action of a subordinate in an unregulated field is considered a mistake and does not deserve punishment, and the violation of a rule is considered a misdemeanor and should be punished.

Rewarding the righteous.

The punishment of sinners.

Energyization.

Correction of settings.

A real understanding of the basic principles of regular management provides that key, or, if you like, the skeleton, the structure. Having it, you can later use any information, assigning it an appropriate place in the system ...

Other operating systems:
directive management.
manipulation management.
improvisational management.

On the potential danger of attractive solutions. It can be noted that with all the variety of methods, approaches and areas of influence, there are similar elements of attractiveness:

"push-button effect": the elimination of sore problems, as well as the achievement of success, is ensured by only one, albeit not cheap, technology;

“pleasant process”: it is interesting to implement the technology, and/or there are qualified external contractors who need to be paid enough, and the rest will inevitably follow;

"external focus": all myths promise leaders favorable changes in the surrounding reality, without affecting their behavior or without emphasizing the need to develop their own managerial skills.

No matter how much you dream about external influences on subordinates, you cannot do without purposeful changes in yourself.

The fact is that any myths cannot work in any way instead of that very regular management, but only in addition to it, as a kind of fine tuning. To introduce all the myths described above as appendages to three other operating systems is generally deadly. Well, think for yourself - how can you combine improvisational management and, say, MBO? And manipulative - with KPI?

During the implementation of consulting projects, I constantly noted the tendency to justify subordinates even in the event of obvious mistakes. This is due to the subconscious sense of responsibility for their actions. But instead of realizing the problem, a natural desire arises to justify them, and at the same time, oneself. The readiness to admit one's guilt is often purely formal and situational in nature and resembles a kind of psychological judo. First we give in, we repent, so that later, straightening up, we leave everything as it is.

Managers devote much less time to management than is required, preferring to work themselves rather than manage their subordinates. Moreover, many perceive management as an unfortunate hindrance to the joys of free labor and a burden on generally pleasant work. And, accordingly, they are ready to deal with this unattractive business from all points of view only during the time left after they have worked out their own as a specialist.

An insufficiently professional leader asks: “They did not complete my task, how should I punish them?” A professional, on the other hand, should formulate differently: “Apparently, I made mistakes in management. What should I change in my actions?

... the phrase "no time" actually means that the issue is not considered really important and a priority.

True professionalism begins where the resources of common sense and common understanding end.

… well-organized work is done quickly, intensively and… imperceptibly. In turn, loud screams, sweaty faces and general fuss testify not to the enthusiasm of subordinates, but to the poor quality of management.

The leader must be able to maintain a proper balance between cooperation and rivalry in the team.

… have you tried asking any of your subordinates the question: “How do you rate your work?” If the interlocutor thinks it works well, try asking the following question: “Why do you think so?”

If the manager himself does not use the tool, then his subordinates with a high probability will not do it either. And not only because there is no positive example (although therefore, too). The fact is that if you yourself do not use managerial technology, then controlling its use by subordinates will require additional efforts and, most likely, will gradually come to naught.

David Meister: "Do what you preach!"

An error should be considered an incorrect action in the absence of a consistent formulation of the correct action. A misdemeanor is an incorrect action when initially notifying a subordinate about what action is considered correct. It is not supposed to punish for a mistake, but for a misconduct - it is necessary! By the way, leaders often violate this rule in the management process, which leads to confusion and vacillation in the camp of subordinates. A passing recommendation: if frequent errors occur when performing any important, from your point of view, details of the work, then this is a clear signal that the regulations need to be revised and / or more detailed. Usually, moderately conscientious people willingly use the opportunities provided by the imperfect rules of the game. But when a manager, with the help of regulations, draws a clear line between error and misconduct, the number of violations and inaccuracies is significantly reduced.

Control should end with a specific evaluation of the subordinate's performance in the form of approval or/and criticism. At the same time, it is not the personality of the subordinate who is evaluated by the sum of points, but the results of his work.

… you can repeatedly explain the pay system to subordinates, they may be able to find out everything in the accounting department or on the company’s website, but if they still don’t understand anything as a result, motivation will not arise.

Just as an athlete needs a coach, so an employee needs someone who will not only support him morally or methodologically, but also not allow him to feel sorry for himself, reducing the load. Through coaching, you will be able to ensure the continuous and systematic development of the skills of your subordinates, bringing them to the peak of their form, assisting in overcoming psychological barriers and not allowing them to stop there.

Evolutionary psychology claims that our ancestors were ready to go hunting only at the moment when the chances of dying of starvation in a cave became higher than dying outside the threshold of this very cave. Therefore, if a person has the opportunity to choose whether to stay at the achieved level or strive for the best, then the majority will prefer not to take risks. And let's not forget about such traditions as "leveling", "non-competitive society", "class solidarity", "creative attitude to the rules", and other features of national management. So, the idea that subordinates will work diligently just because they want to reach a higher level does not stand up to scrutiny.

... the field of power is subjected to constant "reconnaissance in force". And as soon as the subordinate receives a signal that the control system did not properly respond to the violation of the rule, this information is diligently recorded.

…so attractive to many managers, the dream of an enthusiastic and motivated staff who brings huge profits to the company every now and then with joyful enthusiasm is more like a utopia. Why is this myth so tenacious?

Firstly, since we often do not know how to manage personnel and therefore do not like it, we really want to believe in a miracle that will make it possible to do without this “boring and unreliable” occupation.

Second, the business literature periodically offers descriptions of so-called success stories that are exceptions to the rule.

Thirdly, it is much more interesting to look for means for a “deodorizing” effect on the behavior of subordinates than to think about improving your own managerial skills.

Confrontation ... the term “forgot” used by the subordinate should be interpreted by the manager as follows: “I can not only afford not to pay attention to all the details of your assignment, but I also do not consider it necessary to hide this fact.” If an employee is set up destructively, then signaling a lack of resources will be very peculiar, in the form of such replicas: “Well, I don’t know, I’ll try, of course ...” or “How do I know how to do this ?!”

Imitation ... “We tried, but ...”, “So far it doesn’t work, but we will try to do something ...”, “They called, but we haven’t got through yet ...”. One of the fairly characteristic signs of such an attitude is the answer “I don’t know” to one of the questions of the leader ... a person occupying a position of loyalty would probably answer this way: “I don’t know, but if necessary, I can find out.” But if you ask the opinion of a subordinate on an issue that is in his jurisdiction, then the answer “I don’t know” should be understood something like this: “I’m too lazy to think! Maybe you'll let go?"

Diligence… absolutely useless claims like: “Well, you yourself don’t see what needs to be done? You've been with us for two years! Am I supposed to say everything all the time?”

Loyalty... In this definition, as, indeed, in many others in management theory, different authors put a wide range of different meanings. I understand loyalty as a willingness to voluntarily, without coercion, comply with both documented regulations and the unspoken principles of corporate culture. In addition, unlike diligence, loyalty implies the voluntary performance of work that is not assigned, but useful for the business, which falls within the competence and authority of a specialist. The leader must always take a position of loyalty.

… one of the fundamental principles of regular management: the initiative of subordinates is a good additional resource, but success must be ensured by the correct solution of the planned tasks…

…the position of approximately 80% of subordinates depends solely on…the managerial qualifications of their leader. The positions of the remaining 20% ​​of employees are so closely related to their character and, as a result, their attitude to life in general, that they can hardly be adjusted by managerial methods.

Niccolo Machiavelli wondered: what is better for a leader - when he is loved or when he is feared? His own opinion on this issue goes something like this: if you cannot inspire subordinates with both feelings at the same time, then fear is preferable.

... to build the right "vector diagram" we use three formative components: interest, coercion and support.

Unfortunately, most of the leaders do not really know how to encourage or punish psychologically, morally. That is why attempts to use an extensive system of material influences are so widespread, both for punishments and for rewards.

An example with reports that were not submitted on time. The conclusion of the consultant is the lack of managerial qualifications of the manager. From a purely human point of view, such a reaction looks completely natural: the manager, far from idealizing himself, internally believed that the main fault still lay with his “loose” subordinates. Who in such a situation would like the conclusion is completely opposite: what you do not like in their behavior is the result of your own efforts?

... the need for punishment testifies, first of all, not to the viciousness of the violator, but to the poor quality of your management. It was you who allowed the subordinate to "go over the line" and now you must punish him.

Axis "proximity - distance" ... a person often feels awkward in those cases when circumstances force him to explain to other people, especially to good acquaintances, the principles that they themselves support at the level of internal ethics ... I would recommend leaders to maintain that psychological distance, which will allow them to freely use the entire arsenal of managerial competencies. Vladimir Tarasov says: "He who has a way is always right."

Axis "honesty - deceit" ... by deceiving, you enter the path of war. If you deceive your subordinates, you give them a clear and precise signal that you are starting a war. I assure you, they will perfectly understand its meaning and will introduce appropriate corrections into their arsenal of paradigms.

Details may be important in any particular case, but the highest degree of professionalism is the skill of deliberately using well-understood key principles. English mathematician philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.

In the process of creating and developing a methodology for training managers in regular management, I managed to formulate and work out seven paradigms.

The received task must be analyzed before starting work.

The received task must be completed 100%. It can be punished for lack of diligence when subordinates did not do what they could. But it is impossible to punish for the lack of loyalty, when possible actions demanded a feat from subordinates. Such a gradation is due to the fact that loyalty is poorly formalized, so the punishment for its absence is always perceived by subordinates as arbitrariness.

Obstacles to 100% completion of the assignment should be immediately reported to the manager and all stakeholders.

A suggestion to solve a problem is preferable to information about its occurrence.

An extended interpretation of the assignment received is not allowed.

Disagreement with the parameters of the task or the rules of execution cannot serve as a reason for ignoring them.

Facts and reasoning are preferable to opinions.

Properly organized moral punishment leads to the following results.

• the subordinate understands what exactly he did wrong.
• the subordinate knows how to do the right thing, and does not see any logical or resource obstacles to this, except for his own possible inconvenience from changing already familiar behavioral algorithms.
• the subordinate is psychologically unpleasant what the leader has done to him.
• the subordinate is angry not at the leader, but at himself, because he understands that he behaved really wrong.
• the subordinate does not want to repeat the punishment procedure and for this he is ready to expose himself to temporary inconveniences associated with reconfiguring the algorithms.
• the subordinate understands that his movement in the right direction will be properly supported and evaluated by both the leader and the entire management system, without taking into account the negative that has previously taken place.
• the subordinate understands that, in case of failure to provide support, he will not be punished for not having accomplished the “feat” and not achieving the necessary results despite the lack of the necessary resources for this.

Outcome 4 should be considered desirable, but not mandatory, as you can see, to ensure such results, a certain level of “operational leadership” competence is required, while it is much easier to offend a person in general, and a subordinate in particular.

The problem is that a person offended by the management system in the person of the leader rarely seeks to change the algorithms of his behavior, but often begins to conduct “military actions” against the offender, while very talentedly using all the resources available to him, for example, geographical remoteness or his own and inaccessible expert knowledge , information, etc. The lack of understanding by the leader of the difference between punishment and resentment just contributes to the fact that subordinates with high potential often take a position of confrontation or sabotage.

The results of properly organized moral encouragement are manifested in the following.

• the subordinate understands what exactly he did right.
• the subordinate is psychologically pleased with what you have done to him.
• the subordinate wants to repeat the procedure of encouragement and for this he is ready to overcome those obstacles that he can overcome at the cost of intensifying his efforts.
• the subordinate understands that if his own resources are not enough to overcome certain obstacles, he will receive support from the manager and / or from the management system. In case of failure to provide support, he will not be punished for not accomplishing the “feat” and not achieving the necessary results despite the lack of the necessary resources for this.
• the subordinate understands that the repetition of good performance and / or their improvement will certainly be noted by the corporate governance system.
• the subordinate understands that if he does not make enough efforts, then this will certainly be noticed by his supervisor and will cause an appropriate reaction. For the first time - corrective, and in the event of an unreasonable continuation of the negative trend, punishment will certainly follow without taking into account his past merits.

As you understand, you also need to be able to encourage, by the way, you can often insert an element of remotely delayed coercion into encouragement, for example, you praise a subordinate, detailing those aspects of his work that you consider the most outstanding. On the one hand, for him it will be much more significant and pleasant than listening to the so-called "duty" words. On the other hand, this form of praise clearly shows the subordinate that the manager is attentive and inclined to delve into details.

However, sooner or later, any person may have the thought: “is it worth it in this case to strain?” such an internal question can be caused by fatigue, bad mood, weather and a thousand other reasons. This is where the subordinate, weighing the possible consequences of his choice regarding “is it worth it?”, Will definitely remember the “gentle and attentive eyes” of the leader, and remembering, he will realize that “the freebie will not slip through”, and, sighing, gather his strength and start tension properly.

Helpful synopsis? Download!

© Fridman A., 2009

© Dobraya kniga Publishing House LLC, 2009 – design

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and corporate networks, for private and public use, without the written permission of the copyright owner.

Preface to the second edition
About humans and homunculi

I express my deep gratitude to all readers who took the time to inform me of the shortcomings and inaccuracies that crept into the first edition of this book. Thanks to your attentiveness and even corrosiveness, I managed to finalize, and - I hope - improve a number of chapters and sections.

In addition, I would like to thank the audience of my seminars and employees of the companies in which I have led and continue to lead consulting projects on the implementation of regular management. Thanks to your support, and often your critical attitude, I was able to hone, test and improve the principles that need to be used to improve the effectiveness of the corporate governance system.

The pre-crisis affluence and the "temporary difficulties" in the economy that followed it exposed one problem that had been deeply hidden until now: the low efficiency of companies. So far, managers do not take into account the efficiency of the business at all, or they only monitor financial results, not paying attention to the state of the corporate governance system. In my opinion, it is appropriate to pay attention to two key parameters that determine, in addition to the natural compliance with the appropriateness of costs, the real efficiency of the business: labor productivity and the content of the work of the staff.

Labor productivity determines how much conditional work an employee will produce per unit of time. Of course, the work of a manager is more difficult to “digitize” than the work of a turner, but, as you understand, this does not make it any easier. In terms of labor productivity, Russia lags far behind those countries whose products we somehow encounter both on domestic and foreign markets. Obviously, this state of affairs leads to higher costs and, accordingly, the lack of opportunities for real competition.

In addition to how much the employee will do, it is obviously also important what exactly and when he will do. This is what I call "the content of the work." It is clear that if an employee, even with high productivity, does something that is not necessary at all, or is necessary, but not now, then this will have an impact on the final efficiency rather negatively than positively.

But, unfortunately, the increased demand for managers caused the appearance of those whom I began to call "homunculi". Their distinguishing features are an avant-garde appearance, impressive self-confidence, fluency in managerial terminology, readiness to solve any issue, and a complete inability to put their ideas into practice.

So, the absence of a “tailwind” in the form of favorable economic trends will not allow poorly organized companies to live well, and the gradual revival of markets that has begun requires real managerial professionalism from managers, otherwise competitors will get everything. It is not good to blame everything on the government, inept subordinates and bad weather. A leader is a person who is responsible for everything that happens in his “jurisdiction”. And nothing, except for insufficient professionalism in the field of management, prevents us from achieving the efficiency that will allow us to really compete in our market. Let's leave excuses to the weak. It is fitting for the strong to rule, the choice is known: you or you. And may luck and success be on the side of those who are looking for opportunities.

Foreword
A Few Boring Words About Management Efficiency

Boring, because after the public recognition of the fact that the country had entered a period of economic instability, literally everyone started talking about the effectiveness of management: at first, the first persons, and then only the lazy did not notice.

Previously, this topic was not particularly in our honor for reasons approximately the same as a healthy lifestyle: no one denies its usefulness, but it is also not in a hurry to follow it.

I don’t even know who, when and why classified the staff as so-called “intangible assets”. If you calculate what all types of personnel costs cost the company, then the amounts come out very impressive. As for labor productivity, in the world ranking table we are in the place that even the least thinking jingoistic patriot should not be proud of.

Both the cost and the very possibility of turning ideas, plans and plans into real results depend on the clarity of the operational management of subordinates, and, consequently, on the managerial qualifications of the manager.

In an era of prosperity, no one, of course, wants to bother worrying about the effectiveness of management. Everyone is busy, as a rule, with extensive development and with might and main enjoy the fruits of the prosperity that has come. As befits enlightened people, we, of course, feel a slight sense of guilt for our frivolity and promise ourselves someday, in the future, we will definitely take care of the useful, but “tasteless” issue of efficiency. But, unfortunately, we usually stay too long in our comfort zone.

In a period of economic instability, the importance of efficiency - not to be confused with performance - management increases many times!

The approaches of most of our leaders to solving this problem are reminiscent of the thoughts of a monkey from a well-known fairy tale, which could not get together to build a house for itself: in the summer it was already warm, and in winter the wind and rain strongly interfered.

During a crisis that usually comes unnoticed, it turns out that the moment of optimal freedom of maneuver has been lost, and all resources are now being spent on combating the consequences of just that same chronic inefficiency.

Folk wisdom teaches that even a monkey does not ennoble such a model of behavior. So, maybe it's time to start behaving like a representative of Homo sapiens? All the same, there is no other way out, and no one but us is to blame for the fact that there was “lack of time” before. However, should we get used to overcoming the difficulties created by our own hands? It seems to me that this occupation, due to its mass character and traditional character, deserves to be legalized as a national sport.

And one more "boring" topic. During a crisis, people are always concerned about finding additional financial resources. The question is: is there any point in pouring gasoline into a leaky - that is, inefficient - system? Of course, additional funds may be needed, but they will be useful only if, in parallel, someone finally takes seriously management efficiency. Otherwise, this attracted and not cheap resource at the present time will be eaten without much use.

If you belong to that reasonable minority of leaders who, even in well-fed times, did not forget about the basic laws, now, in a harsh time, you will have to continue this glorious path and worthy of imitation of everything with special zeal.

You may think that I am exaggerating. Strong recommendation: soberly assess what is happening around. Hiding your head in the sand, leaving another part of your body outside, is unworthy of a leader. Your time has come, and a lot depends on how you play your game.

What is this book about

About the professional exploitation of personnel and regular management as a means to ensure this useful process.

No, this is not a mistake. The title really says the word "exploitation". Of course, against the backdrop of universal calls for humanization, liberalization, rejection of authoritarianism, the indispensable rallying of teams, the disclosure of creative potential, the attraction of real talents and the full involvement of subordinates in the decision-making process, this may seem blasphemous.

Business is a one way road. Who embarked on this path must understand: it will not get easier. Every day, the leader has to solve more and more tasks, and more and more complex ones. It is said that the neglect of hackneyed truths costs us dearest of all. So that's about them.

Whatever one may say, we have capitalism in the yard with all its characteristic features. And this system of equality does not imply.

The business must be profitable. Profit, as we remember from the "Capital" of the unforgettable Karl Marx, can only be extracted from surplus value. Assigning it with the subsequent return of some part to the one who produced it is called exploitation. Do you agree? Then let's call a spade a spade and let's not lower our eyes in embarrassment and blush bashfully.

Life in modern society consists of an endless exchange of surplus values. You do not want to exploit anyone and do not want to be an object of exploitation? Then you have only one way out - to live outside the society.

That is why the organization of professional exploitation of subordinates is the main task of the leader. Of course, I'm not talking about the exploitation, the vile essence of which we resented back in the days of the Soviet Union. I am more in favor of comparing a modern manager with an operating engineer who must "know and be able." Only in this case, he will be able to provide the mode of operation of the equipment, which is vital in this situation. I foresee your objection: people are not machines, they have character, desires, free will ...

Here I also speak: to know and be able. To know everything that you may have just mentally listed, and much more. And be able to use...

Tell me, does it happen that the manager is faced with the task of achieving a certain result within a specific time frame, and this is so important that, for example, the issues of staff comfort recede into the background? It doesn't matter why, there can be many reasons. But does it happen? And not everything depends on the ability to prevent such situations; There are circumstances beyond his control. And in a crisis, this happens all the time, right? If you do not know how to properly mobilize employees, then you can only rely on the "collective consciousness"?

In case really professional exploitation, no one especially suffers, but people will simply be obliged to show responsibility and discipline, you will leave them no other choice. And this is where efficiency comes in.

The idea that a properly motivated, inspired, cohesive, and motivated workforce will produce the right amount of added value and share it with the manager is perhaps the most dangerous managerial fallacy. Motivation, of course, is needed, but you can’t do without some coercion. The relationship between leader and subordinate should always be so clear that no one ever doubts who is actually in charge.

And now - about regular management. What else is this? There are thousands of books on management. And any leader who at least once studied this subject surely felt like that blind sage who, by feeling, tried to determine what an elephant is.

Moreover, I will allow myself to suggest that as one turned to various sources, it did not become easier, but, on the contrary, the picture seemed more and more vague, right? Maybe that's why, including among practitioners, it is considered good form to be skeptical about management theory?

Regular management involves the formalization of the work of subordinates and the creation of conditions for the conscious implementation of the required number of managerial steps.

Fact: For many managers, the management system is a kind of "black box". The very fact of its work is obvious, and the principles of functioning, alas, are not very clear.

Consequence: most of the time, the manager is engaged in his own affairs, and very little attention is paid to the process of managing subordinates. The process of managing subordinates turns into a daily feat of the leader according to his own feelings. Most of the time is occupied by own work, but very little attention is paid to the management of subordinates.

Problem: market pressure is growing, there is nowhere to increase the working day, and our own resources are at the limit. The productivity of employees should depend primarily on the quality of your management, and not at all on the collective desire of the staff to benefit the company.

Conclusion: The competitiveness of a company is increasingly determined by the level managerial qualifications of all managers and, to a much lesser extent, their experience and enthusiasm. Of course, the presence of these qualities is very useful, but not enough, since it cannot compensate for the lack of an adequate level of professionalism on a regular basis.

Decisions are put into practice through management. Regular management allows not only to reduce the level of personal dependence, but also to ensure proper business efficiency.

Exactly managerial qualification the leader is the main factor that determines the results of activities in general and the degree of diligence, in particular, 80% of employees. Approximately 10% will always perform poorly, and 10% will perform well and almost regardless of the quality of management.

While working on the book, I was least of all thinking about the popularity and (or) fashionability of certain concepts. I have outlined only those principles, approaches and technologies, the practical effectiveness of which I was convinced in 15 years of consulting companies and training leaders.

In Chapter 1, "Control or Obey: A Complicated Path to a Simple Choice" it turns out why the term "exploitation" is the most accurate description of the activities of the leader; we will see if there is a difference between the operation of technological equipment and the operation of a person. In addition, the reasons why the vast majority of managers are unaware of what management is, and why we do not attach importance to managerial qualifications, but prefer to develop in our industry as a priority, are analyzed. From this chapter, the reader will understand how conscious was his choice of the "leader's path", and will master the first technology: how to make the right choice.

In Chapter 2, Mistakes for Life: Difficult Starts for New Leaders various scenarios are studied in which the beginning of a manager's career unfolds, typical managerial mistakes and the most likely consequences for all his subsequent activities. New leaders here will master the technique of correct actions during their “start”. If we are not going to neglect one of the most important functions of a leader and plan to grow loyal professionals, then this will definitely come in handy for us.

In Chapter 3, “The Leader and Management Theory: Does a Goat Need a Bayan?” analyzes typical options for the attitude of managers to management theory. If we cannot structure and localize the sources of the problem, can we deal with them? No. We are doomed to fight the consequences. This chapter explores the causes of distrust in management theory, describes the resources that most leaders replace the lack of systemic management knowledge, finds out why "theories do not work for us", analyzes the consequences of neglecting management theory, determines what management theory can give and what it gives can not. Ultimately, a conclusion is made about how to properly combine management theory with other resources: experience, intuition and common sense. All this will allow the manager to eliminate mental contradictions and correctly use that powerful resource for improving the efficiency of managing subordinates, which is embedded in managerial theory.

In Chapter 4, On the Character of a Successful Leader: Are There “Ideal Leaders”? the ideal character traits of a “real leader” are analyzed, which significantly confuse practical leaders. It discusses various approaches to character typing, gives recommendations on how to make a choice between an innovator and an administrator, and determines which character traits are key for an effective leader. These conclusions help to get rid of a number of illusions and enable the manager to correctly assess not only his managerial potential, but also the potential of colleagues and subordinates. But most importantly, this chapter will help the leader to master the real and accessible technology for the development and relief of certain traits of his own character. Of course, if it does not turn out that he is an ideal.

In Chapter 5, "The Leader and the 'Way of the Warrior': What Hinders the Development of Our Managerial Skills" the reasons that initially hinder the development of managerial qualifications of a leader, as well as obstacles that can slow down the development of an experienced leader, and their possible consequences are analyzed. The leader will learn to overcome obstacles, highlight the phases of learning and act correctly on each of them. You will master such a technology of self-development, which, on the one hand, provides real efficiency, and on the other hand, allows you to do it with pleasure, without turning life into a continuous feat.

In chapter 6 "How much does Monomakh's cap weigh: power as the basis of effective management, where does it come from and how to use it" it analyzes why managers, as a rule, have very little idea of ​​what power is, how to use it, and even mistakenly believe that they acquire it along with the position. In this chapter, the leader will study the basic purpose of power, the rules for using power in managing subordinates, its nature, functions, signs of strong and weak power, the problem of self-seizure of powers, and the sources of forming a strong and legitimate power of the leader. As a result, he will master the technology of adjusting and adjusting the "field" of power in accordance with the current management tasks.

In Chapter 7 "Regular management and other operating systems: how to choose the best" the basic principles of regular management, the history of its development, as well as the key elements of the formation of the main "operating systems" on which the corporate governance system can be based are explored. It analyzes the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of these systems, the prevailing types of subordinates, the applicability of systems in different market situations, the prospects for using these systems during an economic crisis, and the possibility of combining different systems within one company. The manager will master the principles and technologies of the correct “adjustment” of regular management in the conditions of the economic crisis or in accordance with other external factors.

In Chapter 8, "The Myths and Reefs of Modern Management: If You Decided to Get the 'Back to the Top' Arsenal of Trendy Management Techniques" we'll take a close look at what's often bought and sold in place of basic management techniques, and find out why executives are so eager to acquire "magic wands." This chapter analyzes the main attraction of various managerial myths for executive leaders and the consequences of untimely attempts to disrupt the correct sequence of the evolutionary development of the corporate governance system with the most modern managerial "equipment". In addition, the main reasons for the unpopularity of regular management in the post-Soviet space are identified. As a result, the manager comes to a clear understanding of what can prevent him from implementing the most effective methodology for managing subordinates, as well as the correct sequence for developing the corporate governance system.

In Chapter 9, "Why the Top Can't: What Prevents Managers from Managing Their Subordinates" one of the main reasons for the low efficiency of management is analyzed and it is found out why managers devote much less time and effort to managing subordinates than required, despite the fact that they themselves are overwhelmed with work, and the load of subordinates is insufficient. The chapter highlights and describes the typical key "hindrances" that prevent managers from engaging in management. Ignorance of these “hindrances” and, accordingly, inability to conduct self-diagnosis leads to the fact that all managers are somehow dissatisfied with the work of their subordinates, on whom they try to shift responsibility for their managerial mistakes. As a result, the manager gets the opportunity to identify his individual set of obstacles and develop a mechanism for correcting the situation and increasing the effectiveness of managing subordinates.

In Chapter 10, "The Responsibilities of a Manager: Everything is Clear to Everyone, but Nobody Really Knows Nothing" a pattern that is strange at first glance is being investigated: if an experienced manager is asked to list his duties in the field of managing subordinates, then he most likely will not be able to name them or will issue them without any logical structure. This chapter analyzes the problems that prevent effective management in the absence of a clear understanding of managerial responsibilities. The manager has the opportunity to master several approaches to structuring his managerial responsibilities, as well as to systematize their content and typical mistakes in their implementation.

In chapter 11 "Competencies of the manager: what a professional should be able to do" examines the contents of the three "toolboxes" of a professional leader. It analyzes the general purpose of each set of competencies and the scope of each of them in the practice of managing subordinates. Thanks to this, the manager masters the key principles for the optimal combination of managerial competencies for the best performance of his duties.

In chapter 12 "Why the bottom does not want: what affects the attitude of subordinates to work" the second main reason for low management efficiency is analyzed. Here, the basic factors that influence the insufficiently responsible attitude of subordinates to work, as well as those prerequisites that form a discrepancy in the expectations of results and assessment of the contribution to work between managers and subordinates, are considered. The reasons why people are often not attracted to the idea of ​​working better for better remuneration, how there is a feeling of satiated satisfaction with the achieved result, and why the calls of managers to make additional efforts are not properly reflected in the actions of subordinates. The main thing is that the manager is now able to get rid of many illusions and correct his ideas about possible methods of influencing the situation.

In chapter 13 "How to influence the diligence of subordinates: vector diagram of regular management" an analysis of the possible positions of subordinates in relation to the control system is carried out and the key features of behavior that are demonstrated in each of the selected positions are determined. In this chapter the key principles of using managerial competencies to influence the change in the positions of subordinates are formulated, examples of the consequences of violating the principles of forming the correct vector diagram are studied, and recommendations are mastered on the correct combination of the three "vectors" of influence: interest, coercion and support in order to ensure maximum work efficiency.

In chapter 14 "Between the angel and the devil: how to build relationships with subordinates" the answer to the question is given: why do most managers "in earnestly" care about the problem of forming the right relationship with subordinates? How good are good team relationships for effective management? What if the leader and subordinate are friends? Is it possible to maintain companionship outside of work and how to prevent possible problems? The chapter explores whether it is possible and necessary to start informants among subordinates, as well as how to properly consult with subordinates when making decisions. The leader is given recommendations on how, finally, get rid of many old problems and acquire a reliable method of forming the correct system of relations with subordinates.

In chapter 15 "Where to start a new life: on the benefits of magical paradigms" the advantages of correction and formation of paradigms of thinking of subordinates before focusing on the management of individual actions are analyzed. Here we study the optimal set of paradigms, the observance of which by subordinates ensures high predictability of their behavior and significantly reduces the managerial burden on the manager. Supervisor receives a detailed description of these paradigms, examples of correct (according to paradigms) actions of subordinates in various situations, and recommendations for introducing paradigms into management practice.

© Fridman A., 2009

© Dobraya kniga Publishing House LLC, 2009 – design

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and corporate networks, for private and public use, without the written permission of the copyright owner.

© The electronic version of the book was prepared by LitRes ( www.liters.ru)

Preface to the second edition
About humans and homunculi

I express my deep gratitude to all readers who took the time to inform me of the shortcomings and inaccuracies that crept into the first edition of this book. Thanks to your attentiveness and even corrosiveness, I managed to finalize, and - I hope - improve a number of chapters and sections.

In addition, I would like to thank the audience of my seminars and employees of the companies in which I have led and continue to lead consulting projects on the implementation of regular management. Thanks to your support, and often your critical attitude, I was able to hone, test and improve the principles that need to be used to improve the effectiveness of the corporate governance system.

The pre-crisis affluence and the "temporary difficulties" in the economy that followed it exposed one problem that had been deeply hidden until now: the low efficiency of companies. So far, managers do not take into account the efficiency of the business at all, or they only monitor financial results, not paying attention to the state of the corporate governance system. In my opinion, it is appropriate to pay attention to two key parameters that determine, in addition to the natural compliance with the appropriateness of costs, the real efficiency of the business: labor productivity and the content of the work of the staff.

Labor productivity determines how much conditional work an employee will produce per unit of time. Of course, the work of a manager is more difficult to “digitize” than the work of a turner, but, as you understand, this does not make it any easier. In terms of labor productivity, Russia lags far behind those countries whose products we somehow encounter both on domestic and foreign markets. Obviously, this state of affairs leads to higher costs and, accordingly, the lack of opportunities for real competition.

In addition to how much the employee will do, it is obviously also important what exactly and when he will do. This is what I call "the content of the work." It is clear that if an employee, even with high productivity, does something that is not necessary at all, or is necessary, but not now, then this will have an impact on the final efficiency rather negatively than positively.

But, unfortunately, the increased demand for managers caused the appearance of those whom I began to call "homunculi". Their distinguishing features are an avant-garde appearance, impressive self-confidence, fluency in managerial terminology, readiness to solve any issue, and a complete inability to put their ideas into practice.

So, the absence of a “tailwind” in the form of favorable economic trends will not allow poorly organized companies to live well, and the gradual revival of markets that has begun requires real managerial professionalism from managers, otherwise competitors will get everything. It is not good to blame everything on the government, inept subordinates and bad weather. A leader is a person who is responsible for everything that happens in his “jurisdiction”. And nothing, except for insufficient professionalism in the field of management, prevents us from achieving the efficiency that will allow us to really compete in our market. Let's leave excuses to the weak. It is fitting for the strong to rule, the choice is known: you or you. And may luck and success be on the side of those who are looking for opportunities.

Foreword
A Few Boring Words About Management Efficiency

Boring, because after the public recognition of the fact that the country had entered a period of economic instability, literally everyone started talking about the effectiveness of management: at first, the first persons, and then only the lazy did not notice.

Previously, this topic was not particularly in our honor for reasons approximately the same as a healthy lifestyle: no one denies its usefulness, but it is also not in a hurry to follow it.

I don’t even know who, when and why classified the staff as so-called “intangible assets”. If you calculate what all types of personnel costs cost the company, then the amounts come out very impressive. As for labor productivity, in the world ranking table we are in the place that even the least thinking jingoistic patriot should not be proud of.

Both the cost and the very possibility of turning ideas, plans and plans into real results depend on the clarity of the operational management of subordinates, and, consequently, on the managerial qualifications of the manager.

In an era of prosperity, no one, of course, wants to bother worrying about the effectiveness of management. Everyone is busy, as a rule, with extensive development and with might and main enjoy the fruits of the prosperity that has come. As befits enlightened people, we, of course, feel a slight sense of guilt for our frivolity and promise ourselves someday, in the future, we will definitely take care of the useful, but “tasteless” issue of efficiency. But, unfortunately, we usually stay too long in our comfort zone.

In a period of economic instability, the importance of efficiency - not to be confused with performance - management increases many times!

The approaches of most of our leaders to solving this problem are reminiscent of the thoughts of a monkey from a well-known fairy tale, which could not get together to build a house for itself: in the summer it was already warm, and in winter the wind and rain strongly interfered.

During a crisis that usually comes unnoticed, it turns out that the moment of optimal freedom of maneuver has been lost, and all resources are now being spent on combating the consequences of just that same chronic inefficiency.

Folk wisdom teaches that even a monkey does not ennoble such a model of behavior. So, maybe it's time to start behaving like a representative of Homo sapiens? All the same, there is no other way out, and no one but us is to blame for the fact that there was “lack of time” before. However, should we get used to overcoming the difficulties created by our own hands? It seems to me that this occupation, due to its mass character and traditional character, deserves to be legalized as a national sport.

And one more "boring" topic. During a crisis, people are always concerned about finding additional financial resources. The question is: is there any point in pouring gasoline into a leaky - that is, inefficient - system? Of course, additional funds may be needed, but they will be useful only if, in parallel, someone finally takes seriously management efficiency. Otherwise, this attracted and not cheap resource at the present time will be eaten without much use.

If you belong to that reasonable minority of leaders who, even in well-fed times, did not forget about the basic laws, now, in a harsh time, you will have to continue this glorious path and worthy of imitation of everything with special zeal.

You may think that I am exaggerating. Strong recommendation: soberly assess what is happening around. Hiding your head in the sand, leaving another part of your body outside, is unworthy of a leader. Your time has come, and a lot depends on how you play your game.