What Makes a Good Boss?

ac

sdva cv v aevbawesvwas

posted on 1366864882.36 by suresh

dumb

i like "the first line is the title"... simple and 
effective.

posted on 1352164418.36

Interesting

What about having a one-day-boss day?

posted on 1345045996.94

honesty is condition for success of this

model..but there is not too much around..

posted on 1315170853.0 by pippo

Somebody who is nice

posted on 1312730123.13

I would give them noodles, cola and a computer.

Will increase productivity but decrease social 
aspects. (Who needs those anyway?!)

posted on 1305209141.48

Giving good bonuses

posted on 1300051839.01

To be boss without employees: the best solution.

posted on 1296609812.73

I need a Staff

If i am the boss, i think i will have a lot of 
staff to manage because i treat them right

posted on 1269474254.4

this site is quite cool. How did you do this

posted on 1267984126.6

I would allow my team to relax every 1 hour...

posted on 1267982041.28

Has a better technical understanding of the task

and gives concise strategy on how to implement

posted on 1248406138.46 by nomakuletz

Gives clear orders

Knows what exactly he/she wants in what terms and 
who is responsible for result.

posted on 1237088509.18

knows the situation and works as a team with

his/her subordinates

posted on 1235299846.27

Be yourself

You can be only the best boss you can be if you 
are yourself. 

- Talk about your mistakes, just don't make them 
twice
- Be honest
- Give your employees responsibility
- Don't shout
- Express your feelings 
- Be sad, be happy, be proud
- Make sure you discuss things and that your 
employees comprehend your steps
- Open communication
- Establish trust

posted on 1215170498.25

Finding someone to take the blame is important....

that's what I look for in hiring.

posted on 1190439373.87

Finding someone to blame when things go wrong is a

common management strategy.  Despite its 
popularity, this approach is usually ineffective

posted on 1189298688.39

Anonymous Reports Reduce Mistakes

Finding someone to blame when things go wrong is a 
common management strategy.  Despite its 
popularity, this approach is usually ineffective.

If employees know they will be blamed, they will 
avoid responsibility and hide mistakes.  It 
becomes very difficult for coworkers and 
management to improve quality, if everyone is 
afraid to talk about errors.

An anonymous incident reporting system is the 
solution to the problem.  Employees get a 
confirmation ticket when reporting an error.  
Anyone who makes an honest mistake, then reports 
it himself, should be granted immunity from 
disciplinary action.  This encourages reporting.  

The world of aviation has had such a system since 
1975.  Called the Aviation Safety Reporting System 
(ASRS) it has proven very effective in preventing 
accidents.  Application of this idea to healthcare 
has reduced medical errors up to 90%  See Kim 
Vicente's _The Human Factor_ for a fascinating 
account.

posted on 1182037307.58 by SiteAdmin

Scientific Inquiry as Management Model

Business models must change to fit the current 
environment.  Otherwise, even the most powerful 
companies can wind up in trouble.  The management 
model is an important part of this.  Clearly, the 
conventional boss/subordinate/coworker 
relationships -- where the fear of job loss and 
desire for promotion are the primary motivators -- 
 no longer deliver the needed results.

Where to look for new ideas?  Well, Free/Open 
Source Software originated in the academic world, 
to become the key technology for many different 
types of organizations -- including businesses, 
ranging from the tiniest startup to multinational 
in size.

What about using the notion of scientific inquiry 
as a management model beyond the academic world?  
Of course, the goals are different, but the 
concept of an impartial search for truth should 
create a better work environment -- and help the 
organization meet its objectives.  Here are the 
best parts of the scientific process, which are 
broadly applicable.

    * New ideas are welcome, but must be
      rigorously tested.
    * Attribution is very important -- plagiarism 
      is strictly prohibited.  Everyone who 
      contributes is explicitly acknowledged, with
      the greatest contributor listed first.  The
      supervisor of a project is customarily 
      listed last. 
    * There is an emphasis on verification, and
      reproducible results.  Prior work is always
      cited.
    * Everyone is a colleague.  Sharing
      information is mandated, and mutual 
      mentoring strongly encouraged.

This approach should lead to a less politicized 
workplace.  If strong attribution and rigorous 
verification are emphasized, it is much harder to 
manipulate and cheat.  Employees who focus on 
doing their jobs and helping others quickly become 
visible.  

The emerging better practices further benefit the 
organization.  If all results are reproducible, 
then overall performance is much more predictable.

posted on 1176129829.9 by SiteAdmin

Beware the Negative Option

Modern organizations emphasize efficiency.  They 
downsize and restructure constantly.  If you do 
not perform -- the thinking goes -- you will soon 
be out of a job.

Yet, the biggest advances (e.g. the Internet, the 
Boeing 707 jetliner) took place in the 
employment-for-life organizations of the recent 
past.  The frantic pace of today's working world 
looks like great productivity, but the results are 
 often less valuable than they first appear.  

The trouble with negative motivation -- work or 
get fired -- is that it is much easier to destroy 
than to create.  If employees feel that they may 
be downsized at any moment, they will avoid risks, 
and spend time making themselves look better than 
the guy in the next cubicle.

Worst of all, unethical individuals who are not 
above injuring their coworkers gain an enormous 
advantage.  They can set up others for failure, 
pass the blame onto someone else, etc.  When the 
time comes for the next round of layoffs, 
management will inevitably rank the members of 
their staff.  The unscrupulous employees will look 
better than anyone else -- despite the fact that 
they damage the organization by their activities.  
   

After a few such cycles, who remains at the 
workplace?  Who are the "rising stars" that get 
promoted?  Is it really surprising that modern 
organizations (including companies, government 
departments, research labs and even charities) 
have so many problems? 

Experience shows that the fear of dismissal -- the 
negative option -- does not work as a productivity 
tool.  A good boss will find positive ways to 
motivate her staff -- or the organization will 
suffer the consequences.

posted on 1173454215.87 by SiteAdmin

Workplace Tribunals

The separation of executive and judicial powers is 
an essential part of good government.  Why not try 
this at work?  The boss, instead of settling 
disputes on her own, could set up a small panel of 
jurors (maybe like the courts in ancient Athens). 

The jurors could be selected in many ways (by the 
parties to the dispute, by management, by all the 
employees, etc.).  The exact selection process, as 
well as the powers of the "court", could be 
determined by constitution-style document.

Would a boss who adopted such an internal court 
system manage employees more fairly?  Would it 
make the office a better place to work, thus 
improving productivity?

posted on 1170270394.84 by SiteAdmin

Motivate the Troops by Being One of Them?

Economist 2-8 Dec 2006 technology quarterly has a 
one page profile on Ovshinsky which notes that 
he's "the only CEO he knows of who is a member of 
a union" and describes the employment policy that 
the CEO is paid five times as much as the ordinary 
worker, rather than 500 times (what I refer to as 
the Walmart norm).

Note that Costco also has an explicity policy 
about wage disparity between executive and 
ordinary worker,  halfway in between Walmart and 
Ovshinsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovonics

posted on 1169223215.4

The Value of Trust

There is an intriguing idea in economics: that 
the difference between rich and poor countries is 
a matter of trust -- particularly 
institutionalized trust.

http://www.forbes.com/home/
technology/2006/09/22/trust-economy-markets-tech_
cx_th_06trust_0925harford.html

When institutions are trustworthy, it is much 
easier to perform transactions, and security 
costs are far lower.

It should be possible to apply this idea inside 
organizations, and even to individual bosses.  If 
the boss has a system in place to allow the 
co-workers to trust each other (e.g. by punishing 
treacherous behavior) there should be much less 
wasteful office politics, and far more actual 
work being done.

So, a good boss should focus not just on the next 
deadline, but on building trust within the 
organization.

posted on 1167844587.81 by SiteAdmin

The Rule of Law

The rule of law is one of the most cherished 
aspects of enlightened governance.  Why not apply 
it to the workplace?  A predictable framework of 
well-defined rules should improve the office 
environment, by leaving less room for the 
unscrupulous to maneuver.

One particular area where the rule of law can 
help is the firing process.  Here is a brief 
outline on how this may work.

     1. Clearly define what offenses (e.g. theft)
        justify immediate termination.
     2. Have a process leading up to termination 
        for the less serious offenses, such as:
           a. Verbal notice
           b. First written notice
           c. Second verbal notice
           d. Second written notice
           e. Termination            

Would a boss/organization who followed such a 
procedure not reduce workplace stress?

posted on 1166198895.59 by SiteAdmin

The Skunk Works Boss and his 14 Rules

Lockheed Skunk Works is a legendary aircraft
design division of Lockheed (currently
Lockheed-Martin).  Their numerous outstanding
achievements over several decades of operation
have inspired others to imitate Skunk Works ideas,
leading to the concept of the Skunk Works Team.

The original operating rules, however, are not
often mentioned.  These rules were written by
Kelly Johnson, the founder of Skunk Works, who led
the organization during its most productive years.

Some of the rules are specific to defense
contracting, but there are still interesting
parallels to more mainstream situations.

For example, to rephrase rule #7, we could say
that "using open source/free software is very
often better than using proprietary software".


  1. The Skunk Works' manager must be delegated
practically complete control of his program in all
aspects. He should report to a division president
or higher (It is essential that the program
manager have authority to make decisions quickly
regarding technical, finance, schedule, or
operations matters).

  2. Strong *but small* project offices must be
provided both by the customer and contractor (The
customer program manager must have similar
authority to that of the contractor).

  3. The number of people having any connection
with the project must be restricted in an almost
vicious manner.  Use of a small number of good
people (10 to 25 percent compared to the so-called
normal systems). (Bureaucracy makes unnecessary
work and must be controlled brutally).

  4. A very simple drawing and drawing release
system with great flexibility for making changes
must be provided.  (This permits early work by
manufacturing organizations, and schedule recovery
if technical risks involve failures).

  5. There must be a minimum of reports required,
but important work must be recorded thoroughly.
(Responsible management does not require massive
technical and information systems).

  6. There must be a monthly cost review covering
not only what has been spent and committed, but
also projected costs to the conclusion of the
program.  Don't have the books ninety days late
and don't surprise the customer with sudden
overruns.  (Responsible management does require
operation within the resources available).

  7. The contractor must be delegated and must
assume more than normal responsibility to get good
vendor bids for the subcontract on the
project. Commercial bid procedures are very often
better than military ones.  (Essential freedom to
use the best talent available and operate within
the resources available).

  8. The inspection system as currently used by
the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both
the Air Force and Navy, meets the intent of
existing military requirements and should be used
on new projects.  Push more basic inspection
responsibility back to subcontractors and vendors.
Don't duplicate so much inspection.  (Even the
commercial world recognizes that quality is in
design and responsible operations -- not
inspection).

  9. The contractor *must* be delegated the
authority to test his final product in flight. He
can and must test it in the initial stages. If he
doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design
other vehicles. (Critical, if new technology and
the attendant risks are to be rationally
accommodated).

  10. The specification applying to the hardware
must be agreed to in *advance* of contracting. The
Skunk Works practice of having a specification
section stating clearly which important military
specification items will not knowingly be complied
with and reasons therefore is highly
recommended. (Standard specifications inhibit new
technology and innovation, and are frequently
obsolete).

  11. Funding a program must be *timely*, so that
the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the
bank to support government projects. (Rational
management requires knowledge of, and freedom to
use, the resources originally committed).

  12. There must be mutual trust between the
customer project organization and the contractor
with very close cooperation and liaison on a
day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding
and correspondence to an absolute minimum. (The
goals of the customer and producer should be the
same -- get the job done well).

  13. Access by outsiders to the project and its
personnel must be strictly controlled by
appropriate security measures. (This is a program
manager's responsibility even if no program
security demands are made -- a cost avoidance
measure).

  14. Because only a few people will be used in
engineering and most other areas, ways must be
provided to reward good performance by pay *not
based on the number of personnel supervised*.
(Responsible management must be rewarded, and
responsible management does not permit the growth
of bureaucracies).

posted on 1165390785.59 by SiteAdmin