Monday, June 6, 2011

Can you not control your employees???

When I was interviewing for my first supervisor job, I asked the Operations Manager why some managers weren't succesful.  He didn't even pause to think about his answer. 

He said "Lack of control and lack of involvement." 

A few years later (because of a lack of enforcement of policies and procedures on my part !) I found myself interviewing for another job with another company.  I asked the Ops Manager why some managers weren't succesful. 

He said "Inability to control employees, and not caring." 

That's another way of saying "Lack of control and lack of involvement." 

Speaking of inadequate management, the founders of our country were the first to believe that a government should work for the people, and not vice-versa.  Our government only has authority because we allow it to have that authority.  It's called "government by the consent of the governed".  In other words, Barack Obama, John Boehner, the infamous "chair nazi" at Fort Worth's McCart Street Department of Motor Vehicles, the highway patrolman, David Petraeus, the person who teaches your 4th-grader, and Anthony Weiner all work for....YOU. 

Because of the actions and poor decisions of your employees (if you are a taxpayer) you are $129,000 in debt.  That's your share of the total. 

If you hired a lawn service that purchased a $50,000 mower, a $50,000 weed-eater, and contracted for $29,000 in employees and then sent you the bill, you would fire them.  You would go to court to have them stop spending in your name.  You wouldn't ask how much their purchases were helping the economy, you wouldn't stop to wonder if you were throwing their grandmothers off a cliff, and you wouldn't care how much your decision to fire them impacted the situation in the Middle East. 

You would fire them. 

But you continue to stick with Republican and Democrat employees, don't you? 

They're horrible.  Total miserable failures. 

What's your excuse?  Lack of involvement?  (You think the problem will just magically go away) Or lack of control?  (You just can't bring yourself to tell the crack whores running around with your credit cards that you're cutting them off.) 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 


Hot Sam said...

In the military, I expected leaders to have a large amount of "control" over their subordinates. This was necessary because a leader is responsible for everything their unit does or fails to do, and it's wrong to hold someone accountable for something they don't control.

But it got crazy. Leaders were being punished for actions by their troops that they couldn't possibly control. They were punished for circumstances they couldn't control, and for which they were given no power to even influence. That's when I decided to hang up my oak leaf.

But I found, much to my chagrin, that the private sector and government sector were worse.

In my first private job outside the military, my boss was a real jerk. His "F" word was "fired", and he used it A LOT. He wanted to fire one coordinator, and I backed her up, helping her to document all the good work she was doing. Then the little *$)@& repaid my kindness by filing a frivolous sexual harassment complaint.

My boss wanted me to change another woman's hours "just because." The woman had child care arrangements worked out, and changing her hours was infeasible for her. And I saw no purpose of changing her hours as they met my needs and the customer's needs.

I really think he just wanted me to fire someone just to prove I could and would do so. He hired me out of the military because he thought I would be a hard ass. He didn't realize that all the dumb ass hard asses stayed in for their cushy jobs.

I've worked in places where the crazies were running the asylum that need to be controlled. A friend of mine was hired to run a government office precisely to fire some people. One woman actually behaved as though coming in to work was optional. When she was fired, she said, "But I'm a good worker." My friend said, "You're never here to do any work!"

But most "management" is unnecessary nonsense of chest thumping to prove to their bosses that they're actually doing something to earn their inflated salaries.

Times like this, I wish I could work for myself. But I'd probably hate my asshole boss there too.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

It's a weird situation.
The analogy that I find myself using most often with employee meetings (SHOCKER ALERT !) goes along free market lines....

"We're wanting to purchase (x) from you. In exchange for the (x), we're going to give you money. At some point, we might not want (x) any longer. We might want (y)."
(X) and (y) might be computer skills, forklift ability, unloading containers from China, or playing well with others.
Once people get it into their heads that they are a company SUPPLIER, and not just an employee, behavior often changes.

Some of them even get uppity and resign and sell their services elsewhere for more money.

The idea that any employer is Lord Of The Manor, and he should supply his serfs with healthcare, childcare, etc etc etc makes me ill.