What it is necessary to know about chiefs, or I Will tell the Management for subordinates of
at once: in my opinion, the best chief is a chief in business trip or its total absence. Unfortunately, nobody managed to pass communication with chiefs still - even to those who them became subsequently. And over any boss there is even more powerful and high-ranking chief so all this is chain reaction.
Here I try, try, and to personally immediate superiors I can tell nothing good. One, proceeding from the spontaneity and shamelessly using mine, exploited me as they could, and others - proceeding from the same spontaneity, tried to tie close, but absolutely unambiguous relationship. And, it is as if immodest sounded, we with Pierre Beaumarchais think equally: “ If the administration does not do us the evil, then this already considerable benefit “. And the evil it can be disposable (in the form of banal dismissal), but is more often - long and is systematic - sadistichesky until this notice of resignation is written with own hand.
The only thing that I understood absolutely accurately: there is no such chief who would not be greedy for special attention, ingratiations and flattery. And, it does not mean familiarity at all - and just such unostentatious “ how yours anything? “ and “ as you correctly calculated everything and thought over! “. But everything has to be moderately because “ 2 - y Lieberman`s law “ says: “ The Chief on average twice growing dull, than it seems to him, and it is twice cleverer, than it seems to his subordinates “. So chiefs, though bathe in our compliments, all perfectly see and know - the truth, and on decisions it for some reason is not reflected in their behavior. Here tell me where the logician in words Samuel Goldvin: “ I do not need employees who can only assent. I want that everyone said directly to me the truth, - even if he will be dismissed for it “? And as a result the real hard worker, but at all not the bootlicker, is on street with motivation, for example, “ got laid off “ and all others and continue to do nothing - well except how to be scattered in curtseys before the boss and to bring to him tea.
Highly professional and efficient subordinate as at most can be taken in deputies that did serious work, and ordinary employees with a potential and far-reaching plans are not necessary to near chiefs: coffee will not be made by them, to fawn - too and in general irritate with what you will not grasp - as at most, can only shout. Better let others potter about here: with diplomas, but with harmless I.Q. and knowledge and as a result - without professional and even without purely human pride. But the worst option if the chief breaks such unshakable, proud and everything the knowing subordinate who just very needs work, and it agrees even to prepare tea. Here the chief will play enough on full!
However nervous and something the being subordinates are irritated most of all not so much by near chiefs how many of the Rule of Dickson: 1. The chief is always right. 2. If the chief is not right, watch the rule No. 1 “. Especially as orders and orders of the administration is absolutely special article. In fact, majority of them no other than all known “ go there, I do not know where, bring that, I do not know that “. But on it is “ Second law of Brintnell “: “ - execute both From two instructions contradicting each other “. Yes would execute, it is a pity, perhaps, both that, and another all the same to be responsible only for result of performance to us.
Sometimes you sit on the modest office chair and you think: really, if under on what you sit, there was a management chair, then you will instantly change in such here representatives of group of shefoobrazny too? Here it is bad that people share, it agrees Dayane Reyvich, to two categories: on those who know “ as “ and those who know “ why “. The first will always find work, and the second will always be their chiefs. So, maybe, to pretend what we do not know how but only we know - why? Though it will not rescue “ fathers of the Russian democracy “ who on a sort, seemingly, are fated to go all life to subordinates even at Benderov.
No, actually everything is not so bad: happens that the chief sits in the place quite deservedly, and “ the decent chief always equally shares a merit with the one who made all work “. And we - that know that the chief without rating is not the chief, and usually the chief`s cavils - tempest in a tea cup. But just “ business is in on what table there is this glass “ as Veslav Brudzinsky spoke. So if there is it on a table of the favourite chief, track simply that this glass did not turn into its bowl of patience. And if the chief is strict in work, but is lovely in communication and did not lose the human qualities yet, then it is quite possible to love it and even to be loyal to it - it is unknown what will be following.
Of course, the ideal option is a work without chief. That is, it can hypothetically be present somewhere, and you can few times in a year even face it, but the biggest love of chiefs and subordinates is a love at distance. You take yourself work on the house, you perform disposable tasks or you type orders on the Internet, even without seeing a face of the direct chief, - and everything is fine! If are dissatisfied some with results of your work is it is digested and it is fixable, but when it turns into discontent personally you - here the irresolvable interpersonal conflict is already available. And then, in my opinion, after defined - an average - age it becomes especially difficult to take out immediate superiors.
And in general, there are more optimism and humour! And if as Mark Boguslavsky advises, “ the director told you: “ We, most likely, will not work well together “ - try to persuade him not to leave the post “.