Friedman or you professional exploitation of subordinates. You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader

12.11.2021

Alexander Fridman

you or you: professional exploitation subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader

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. Managers do not yet take into account the effectiveness of the business at all, or they only monitor financial results without 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 performance, 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 hallmarks are adventurous 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 “fair wind” 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 healthy lifestyle life: 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 global rankings 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 so 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 preoccupied with finding additional financial resources. The question is: is there any point in pouring gasoline into a leaky - that is, inefficient - system? Certainly, 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.

Hello dear visitors of our blog. We continue our series of interviews and today our guest is an expert in the field of regular management, consultant and business coach - Alexander Fridman.

What are three qualities that a person must possess to become a good leader?

Who should pay for employee training? Why full business automation is not always good, and how to understand that you are in the right place?

We will talk about this and many other things, and of course, using the examples of small businesses today. Read the article further or watch the video - you choose 😉

Nikita Zhestkov: In your opinion, where should small business management be compared to marketing?

Alexander Fridman: From my point of view, management is at the top of all processes, because it manages marketing.

Marketing by itself will not work. You can take a super marketer, great, but they also need to be managed, and marketing will have to be built into the company's management system, correspond with sales, logistics and production.

Who will do all this? Everything that happens by itself is done badly. So, from above comes management, which manages.

And in this sense, marketing is fundamentally no different from logistics, from anything else - these are the components of success.

Let's be frank, which is better - to think well and produce poorly, or to produce well and sell poorly? It makes no sense.

The result will be if we connect everything correctly. Small businesses need to keep this in mind. Because no matter which leg he starts to limp on, it will still be bad.

For me, a sign of a small business is when the owner personally manages subordinates and, as a rule, intelligence is enough for this. At the beginning.

But as the business grows, if the business can be pushed into orbit, it's time to acquire professional skills. Better sooner than later.

You often write on your website such a phrase that there are no magic pills, there is a system.

That is, you are convinced that you can make a good leader out of any person? Or are there still people who do not have a predisposition to this?

The leader is the same profession. And to any profession there can be abilities and contraindications. There are people who, because of their nature, simply find it more difficult.

People with what character traits will be more difficult?

I can name three qualities that are important for a leader:

Openness of thought. I understand openness of mind as the ability to learn and relearn.
Perseverance. It refers to the ability to overcome obstacles, the ability to forgive oneself, the ability to work through difficulties.
And if a leader has perseverance, but there is no openness of thinking, perseverance turns into stubbornness and categoricalness.
If a person has an open mind, but no perseverance, then he turns into a “trapper”. He understands everything, but he cannot do anything.
Demanding. The leader must be able to ask people. If the leader does not know how to do this, he can only work with exceptionally respectable people, from whom nothing needs to be demanded, who will do everything themselves.

And without these three qualities, it will be difficult for a leader. The rest, of course, are welcome. But I see these three qualities as key.

Are these three qualities inherent in a Russian person? We often compare ourselves to Americans. Still, is this our mentality or do the Americans have the same thing?

You know, about anthropology or sociology, cultural studies - I'm not a specialist, but, if you'll excuse me, I'll turn it a little differently.

Firstly, it seems to me that for Russia, the German management model is preferable, because mentally we are less at odds with them.

We are logically closer to them than to the Americans. This is my point of view. But again, Russia is also huge, the regions differ from each other, so this is a very conditional conversation.

Alexander Fridman about the management model in Russia

America is the forge of management, it was invented there. The leading management schools are there, a small number are Britain, France, but the main ones are there.

But it happens that they ask, but will Western management work for us? Western - what is it? What is west of Kaliningrad?

I found such an explanation for myself - the principles of management are unchanged. Like the principles of mathematics or sopromat.

But the application of principles cannot fail to take account of the mentality. And therefore, a direct transfer of techniques without understanding how everything works is impossible.

Classic paradox story. When Japan in the 60s showed America the market for radio equipment and cars.

America began to copy the Japanese experience. But the most interesting thing is that management was brought to Japan by Edwards Deming, that is, it was brought by an American. And they started doing the reverse translation again, and it turned out badly.

This is a classic of all textbooks - the conflict between American and Japanese management. Russia is not a pariah here at all.

This, excuse me, is the excuses of inept leaders who, in the absence of results, always answer my dialogues the same way.

And they look something like this: “Well, we are in Russia.” AND? "Well, you know what kind of people we have." What kind of people do we have? “Well, you understand our customs.” I always tell them my favorite phrase:

“Guys, if you don’t know how to manage, you don’t need to excuse yourself with customs. Russia should not be responsible for you. If you yourself cannot, then Russia is to blame.”
Alexander Fridman

The mentality is different in all countries, but the principles of management are the same. There is no need to imitate anyone, you need to study.

But when we study the success story, we can't just copy the things we like.

We will recall the old story about the old man Hottabych, who copied the phone, making it out of black marble. Everything is fine, but for some reason the phone did not work.

Trying to "copy-paste" without understanding the whole mechanism and, including the mentality, is meaningless. I usually say copying - no, studying and understanding - yes.

To what extent is your latest book based on American technology?

My book How to Punish Underlings is not based on American technology. It is based on the intersection of management, psychology and a bit of pedagogy.

Now I'll tell you, probably, a funny thing. My book, if you trust the publisher's search, is the only one in the world on punishments.

A search was made in the English-speaking and Russian-speaking space. There are no books about punishments in the field of management. And just this reflects, it seems to me, a fairly understandable policy of double standards.

About my own book

Many states have a law that an employee can quit at once, but the employer can also dismiss him at once.

That is, they have equal rights. The democratism of Western management is greatly exaggerated, we judge it by books in which there is emotion, and the reality there is arranged much more rigidly.

Then about fines. Here in Russia they are prohibited. Officially. But still they all do it. Therefore, please tell me, are fines motivation, stimulation or demotivation?

The fact is that my book “How to punish subordinates” concerns only moral punishments.

Moreover, I consider material punishment for people who think to be extremely harmful.

But the level of lower management is so bad so far that it will simply not work without fining sellers or janitors.

I don't think financial punishment is a good tool. Firstly, a fine is a sign of helplessness, because the leader does not need a fine, he needs a result.

In addition, I consider fines to be a form of internal corporate corruption. A simple example: You fine me for being late.

I know the cost. That is, I can pay you this amount and be late. So? No, this is nonsense.

As I already said, the first is managerial helplessness, the second is that by taking money from an employee, the manager actually enters into a corrupt conspiracy.

And one more reason, the third - taking money from an employee, the manager signs his own helplessness.

He is forced to charge a fee for something that cannot provide a result. It seems to me ideologically and technically absolutely wrong.

And I find that the head is using managerial competencies must ensure the result and prevent the employee from committing a violation.

You do not have such an approach that the company should have a human factor. Or is it all system?

We cannot ignore the human factor. The main task of the leader is to assemble a team of like-minded people, to ensure the result.

I believe that one of the sections of the manager's job is to ensure the professional exploitation of assets.

The assets are the subordinates. In professional operation, the human factor cannot be ignored.

We must provide an individual approach, we must try to give people the work that they like, and they will do it brilliantly. But even in small companies, you will not always find a job for everyone.

Yes, even at this time of day, and even at this time of year. What if an employee is in a bad mood in the morning. It turns out the human factor.

But why not give him a job now? For example: if Masha loves pears, and Dasha loves apples, and I have both pears and apples, then it’s probably better to feed one with what she loves.

But this is not always possible, because personal dependence will arise. Masha will not be able to eat apples, and Dasha will not be able to eat pears. Any individualization has limits beyond which it becomes unprofitable.

“We need to provide an individual approach, we must try to give people the work that they like, and they will do it brilliantly. But even in small companies, you will not always find a job for everyone.”
Alexander Fridman

I liked your phrase “professional exploitation”. It turns out that it leads to the fact that all the mistakes of the staff are reduced to the main mistake of the head.

That is, can we say for sure that everything that happens in the company is the actions of the leader?

Absolutely. Wrong bees give wrong honey. People work the way they are managed.

And every manager deserves his employees. At professional leader There are no bad subordinates.

After the competition begins to grow, the market begins to shrink and a crisis sets in, the owner understands that the screws need to be tightened.

And he begins to drag out, and the staff begins to either crumble or protest.

In this case, is it possible to correct the team that already existed, or is it still necessary to understand that the old horse can no longer be harnessed?

Indeed, there is such a thing as the stages of organizational development.

If a person does not need to be adjusted, he is already ours. Powers are sorted out like weapons on alert. He reached out - took it, did it, normally. But we cannot build a five-story house using barn technology.

About like-minded people

There is such a thing as the need to change the principles of management. One of the basic aspects of development management is what strategic management does.

He must understand that no matter what you start, the resistance will be changing the status quo. This is the first. Second, the resisters will often be among the best.

Because the better a person is at the previous stage, the less interested he is in change. Of course, the company must do everything to preserve the gene pool. But the company must be ready to cut.

One of the most acute problems of all leaders is that the staff constantly pulls the leader.

For every question, for every little thing. Give some of the simplest tool that can be implemented right today.

Good. I will give it. But, at the same time, you can make a reservation. I have a very negative attitude to the idea of knowing the profession through the main secret.

The main secret - I know and I can. There is no secret in any profession. It is necessary to know not the solution, but the principle of the solution.

So, advice: the first is to give people a guaranteed day and time of the meeting. Quantity, frequency depend on the type of activity. For example, each top manager is guaranteed two hours once a week.

“People work the way they are led. And every manager deserves his employees. A professional leader does not have bad subordinates.”
Alexander Fridman

But besides this scheduled meeting, I must have other access points. I usually recommend this: a subordinate can meet with me, for example, on Thursday from 15:00 to 16:00 as planned.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday at the end of the day I am always in place and highlight the “captain's bridge”. The subordinate knows that he can call me, my phone works, and contact me.

The third possibility is that I have so-called "windows of chaos" in my schedule. Let's say I work from 09:00 to 11:00, and from 11:00 to 12:00 I have a “chaos window”.

And a subordinate who cannot wait until the “captain’s bridge”, that is, the matter is urgent, then he opens my calendar and says: “When is Alexander’s next window of chaos?”

And finally, the emergency channel. With a cry of "guard" he can break into me at any second and get me from anywhere.

But we understand that if he does what he is waiting for a break with a cry of “guard” ... there will be an educational process.

If he climbs during a break with what he waits until the evening, there will be an educational process. If in the evening he treats that he is waiting for a scheduled meeting for the second time, there will be an educational process.

Therefore, it is not enough to create rules, you need to support them. Usually in two weeks everything is lined up.

But again, the nuances: you need to meet with someone once a week, with someone once a day, and with someone once a month is enough. This is unknown to me.

Summing up, conditionally easy way unload the leader from constant “twitching”.

This is a series of scheduled meetings - once, and the possibility of extraordinary access - two. And finally, emergency - three.

WE ARE ALREADY MORE THAN 29,000 people.
TURN ON

Is it possible to immediately find a “ready-made” employee at the present time?

Labor market, lack of personnel in all cities, and the largest cities. There are 300,000 people in the city, they say - not to be found, in Moscow, they say - not to be found, in my native Latvia, where one million two hundred live - not to be found.

There is no bad labor market, there is intense competition for labor resources. Therefore, you need to be able to compete.

Following. Requirements for the position should be tied to the functionality. Very often they try to look for Batman, that is, a person who is perfectly motivated, professional, crazy moral, and so on.

That is, everyone is looking for the perfect people. And there are none. They still take those who are. But they work with them as if they were perfect. It turns out bad. There is a saying: "If you look for a magician, you will get a storyteller."

About ideal employees

Therefore, it is possible to find, but first of all, there must be an internal competition, you must first develop your own, and only then look for it.

But then again, if it does not contradict their characteristics. You don't have to teach your dog to climb trees.

And how to check that a person will not steal? Is there any specific methodology?

The methodology is fairly standard. Firstly, when we talk about assessing people, we must remember the quote from the American George Patton that there are no guarantees in this filthy world, there is a possibility. Professionals operate with probabilities.

If you do something right, the probability is higher. Doing it wrong - the probability is lower, and significantly, exponentially.

And accuracy - never. There are quite professional tests that allow you to identify obvious inclinations in a person not only to steal, but to violate agreements, play on “himself”.

I don't know of any other simple methods. I am not ready to solve complex issues with simple methods.

There are testing methods, which can also include a polygraph. But it also does not guarantee 100% accuracy.

Back to real life. There are such hackneyed opinions - people change, or vice versa, people do not change.

The second option is more popular. Within the framework of employees: are they changing or does it no longer make sense? If we see that he fails.

Each person has some kind of elasticity, resilience, like any system. Some things he can change, some things he can't.

And so, when something doesn't go again, it's always the question, "What caused it?" Lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of skills?!

Because it happens that a person simply does not have technology, and the company has not set up a feedback system.

We divide entrepreneurs into two types. There are entrepreneurs who believe that employees can and should be trained.

And there are those who say that I will invest money in him now, he will leave and open his own business. Still, it is necessary to train or not, and the main question is - who should pay?

First, do you need to train? Let's solve the engineering problem with you. I need an employee to be able to do certain things.

If he knows how, he probably does not need to be trained. On the other hand, there is an idea that if he does not know how, then I need to fire him and look for someone who can.

But I’ll say right away that from the point of view of team formation, it’s more profitable to train your own, who understands something.

What if he leaves and starts his own business? Did you think that if you don't train them, they will stay?!

Here I do not see a dilemma at all, because the leader very often looks for a solution without a problem. And I will say this thing - there are no problem-free decisions in management.

You choose between kinds of problems. And there are developing problems, and there are entropic problems.

And we choose between them. But we never choose between having no problems and having problems.

About training

Who pays? I believe that a company should invest in its employees. Another question is that it should teach not what they are interested in, but what the company needs.

Teaching what is interesting, and not what is needed, is possible only as an additional motivation. You control me, you create motivation for me.

For example, Alexander Friedman achieved brilliant results, and the company paid him a cactus breeding course in the Atacama Desert, because Alexander's hobby is cactus breeding.

It does not affect his cross stitching skills in any way. But this is wildly motivating, because he himself will not pay for this course.

And the company paid him and his family accommodation for the training and accommodation at the SPA-Resort in Atacama. Alexander Friedman is proud. This is an exceptional case.

In other cases, the company develops me according to my profession and says: “Alexander, you have no right to refuse development.”

Democratic company McKinsey answered this well - develop or be free.

You can't refuse, I'm not asking you if you want to learn. If you want to work, you will study.

You do not want to work - free. You will study with us, and we will give you methods.

When you pay me for training, you have the right to put pressure on me. That is, you do not ask if I want to study.

No, of course, you sell it, tell what it is for, but all of a sudden I still didn’t want to. "No, I'm not interested in that."

And you say to me: “Alexander, you do not understand. This is due to your growth and stay in the company. We don't need you in your current capacity. But we don't want to lose you.

Therefore, if you want to stay - the way there is through cross-stitching. Because the company faces strategic and….”, - and then comes the motivation. And I have to understand very well between what and what I choose.

But the situation changes when you say: “Alexander, now you pay for part of your education, and we pay for the other part.”

First, it is perceived as extortion. Why is it that you, as a leader, want my development, while I have to pay? You are investing in yourself through my training.

In addition, there is another concept: I paid, and now I have the right to decide whether to apply or not. I paid, it's mine, right?

I want - I do, I want - no. What's your business? I paid for it. I bought a jacket and I don't wear it. And that's how it works.

“I believe that a company should invest in its employees. Another question is that it should teach not what they are interested in, but what the company needs. Teaching what is interesting, and not what is needed, can only be done as an additional motivation.”
Alexander Fridman

Therefore, the fact that people will be motivated to implement in order to earn their money is a completely false premise.

Another question is that one must be able to implement an omission. This also requires tools. That is, I went through training, and then the manager meets with me and says: “Alexander, have you been to a seminar on delegation?

Yes. - Tell me, what interested you the most? - Oh, I learned a lot there. - Alexander, as far as I know, the coach gives homework. You completed them, right?

I was going to do them, but I haven't done them yet. - Tell me, please (taking out a pencil), when do you intend to do this? - ...

Ah, you can't name a date now. Please write to me e-mail, I want to keep abreast of your development.”

Let's imagine that on the 5th, the manager talked to me and said: “Alexander, you really did your homework and it's good.

Now tell me, where are you going to start? Do you understand?! You control me, you create motivation for me.

Therefore, I believe that only the company should pay. Everything else is fees.

At the request of the majority I ask a question. I have 20 people in my company. And let's imagine that I want to automate the business and finally, like a normal entrepreneur, get out of it.

So that the business works for me, not me for it. How long does it take to get 80-90% out of business?

I'll start a little from afar. This is just our mentality. We don't want to lead. We are considering this: how much can you wind your nerves already ...

And this, by the way, is a fundamental difference from the comrades west of Kaliningrad - at least the old Europe and America. They work there all their lives.

AT different countries differently. Because a person is his place of self-realization. He's not going to retire.

And if he leaves, he can hire CEO, but still takes part in the life of the company.

The role and structure are changing, but the person does not leave the business. Second. In order to take less part - this phrase “not me for business, but business for me” - it is necessary (now you will laugh at the answer) to really set up a corporate governance system. All.

What time is it? Plus or minus a mile?

I won't answer. Because it depends on your business, it depends on its current state, it depends on whether your business has money for a professional manager.

The leader suffers because he is not a professional. We have an almost zero market of professional managers who can be trusted with the company, and these people are attached somewhere.

And until there are enough of them to work in a relatively small business, so I advise you to forget about this story altogether.

And I would ask a question to which I don’t even ask for answers: why do you want to leave the business so much? Answer this question for yourself.

Could this be due to the fact that the leader performs feats every day? He goes every day as if to war, and not to work that brings pleasure.

If you're not professional, it's hard for you. Professionals rarely suffer at work. Why do they come to work calmly? Everything is clear to them. This is a fundamental difference.

In the midst of a conversation

But again, on the other hand, if a person works from the heart, then it is also difficult for him, but when he leaves work, he has working fatigue.

Of course, he is tired, but he understands what he did, understands why, understands what will happen tomorrow.

But when he worked miracles all day, in incomprehensible jumps, when he fought with reality, here he crawls out exhausted.

Because he understands that tomorrow, again, in a way unknown to science, he should get a result. That's why leaders run.

Not because they are lazy. They get tired of suffering. Why are they suffering? Because they are not professionals.

Therefore, colleagues, become professionals, then look. You will have an answer - “How long can I leave the business?”. Or maybe you don't want to leave it. We need such a cow.

“The leader is always where it is needed in this moment. This is the art of a leader - to understand where you should be now, and what is your model now, how will you motivate people.”
Alexander Fridman

Last question. Let's take two historical leaders - Spartacus and Napoleon. They have conceptually different management strategies.

Spartak is always at the head, ahead of the team, and the first to run into battle. Napoleon, of course, stands at the highest point, and points his finger where to run.

By the way, both ended badly. I would like to say with a quote from Zhvanetsky: “Whatever you do with a person, a dog crawls in a cemetery.” As he says, "Overeating leads to obesity, and undereating leads to anorexia."

My question is, in front or behind, or in the center, surrounded by protection, should the leader stand. How better in the 21st century?

Firstly, I am not out of irony and not out of controversy, I am very calm about these phrases - “management of the 21st century”, “management of the 20th century”.

Leadership is a set of tools. And the leader must be able to be many-sided. He must understand when to lead the attack, and when to stand in the center, and when to stand and give commands.

Because there are situations when you need to lead, motivate and be the first to take a shovel.

A leader is someone who can organize and inspire. There is no answer - in the center, behind or in front.

The leader is always where it is needed at the moment. This is the art of a leader - to understand where you should be now, and what is your model now, how will you motivate people.

briefly about the main

Those who read to the end are really good fellows. We are sure that now you know a little more than most entrepreneurs.

And you will use Alexander's advice in your professional activities.

P.S. Thanks to the Baikal Training Center for help in creating the interview. Without you, we are nowhere.

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 repairs or construction works. It is necessary to do so in order to attract attention, telling supposedly useful information, but at the same time, you need to tell those things so as not to give anything to competitors, and thirdly, you need to make sure that, based on the result of watching all the videos, the client still could not do this work 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.

I liked the typification of control systems:

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 speed decision-making, 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.

Examples:

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 finally found the best the best book in 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

Ad content

Alexander Fridman

YOU OR YOU:

PROFESSIONAL EXPLOITATION OF SUBJECTS

Regular management for a rational leader

Foreword

A Few Boring Words About Management Efficiency

Previously, this topic was not particularly in our honor for reasons approximately the same as a healthy lifestyle: no one zealously denies its usefulness, but they are 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.

In an era of prosperity, no one, of course, wants to bother worrying about the effectiveness of management. Everyone is busy with extensive, as a rule, development and is enjoying the fruits of the prosperity that has come with might and main. 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!

Yes, and one more, no less "boring" topic. During a crisis, people are always concerned about finding additional financial resources. Question: 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.

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, the rejection of authoritarianism, the indispensable rallying of teams, the unification 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 most expensive thing for us is the neglect of the beaten

Friedman or you professional exploitation of subordinates. You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader

briefly about the main

Ad content

Interesting articles

Interesting articles