Tower of Babel management
The development of the company can occur in different ways. Managers build business processes based on personal experience, or by borrowing ready-made solutions. The larger the company, the more complex its structure, the more flowery the information exchange, and the problems are becoming more and more systematic.
I often hear phrases that “the head is a freak,” “PM *** and demands the impossible from us,” “we are struggling with a hell of problems because the management creeps under the customer,” “we were made guilty and fined not that "and so on. The developers are outraged by the actions and decisions of their managers (or lack thereof), the managers carry out punitive operations in relation to the “parasites” and “gouging”, the top management conducts raids on vilization of everyone in a row so that the process of making money does not stop.
Reflecting on the reasons why this is happening, I came to the conclusion that there are several mistakes in the actions and decisions of the management staff. Managers of different levels should communicate with each other in a special “language” that is specific to each specific level of management. We will talk about these "languages".
Many managers do not see the difference between these two concepts, although there is a huge gap between them. Let's take the standard, simplified to the maximum, the structure of the company.
Employees personify the company's production. These are those who directly create material values ​​(this term sounds somewhat ironic when it is applied to the levels of electrical signals recorded as the degree of magnetization of certain sections of metalized surfaces)
')
Managers who directly manage employees are production managers.
Any other manager who controls non- employees will be a financial manager.
The employee provides the employer with his time and intellectual resources, receiving in return a monetary reward for using them. The production manager manages these resources, having a complete picture of the employment of each employee. For more effective management, various methods of setting tasks, planning, building reports, communication, and information exchange are used.
So what language does the worker communicate with the production manager? In the language of resources. The task of the manager is to ensure the effective use of labor and time resources (and he has no others at his disposal). To do this, he needs to have an exceptional amount of information about the production process; without this, the manager becomes a banal postman who shifts the letters from one box to another.
The head does not have to manage the workforce; his tasks include financial planning, managing the costs of production, ensuring the overall business process of the company. And with subordinate managers, he should speak only in the "language" of money. It sounds somewhat strange, because he must know about the production processes in order to at least somehow effectively plan. Absolutely right, he should know. Managers in submission should provide information on the costs of production, but all this is expressed only in monetary terms.
Take a simple example. There are such entities as the budgets of resources, time, labor resources for the production of certain software. Ask yourself what is all of the above? The word "budget" already means money. Whether it is important from the point of view of money, who exactly will create the project architecture, or who will write the device driver, will it be labor resources of the company or outsourcers? Absolutely not. The manager should simply invest in the budget, which is an expensive part for the enterprise.
Problems in the company begin with the fact that different levels do not communicate in their "languages". Any attempt to shift the task of costing or financial planning to an employee is doomed to failure. The employee is not interested in taking on additional responsibility, and he does not see the whole picture of expenses. We will not consider this option for objective reasons.
There are many problems when a production manager grows to a manager, but does not change his habits of managing resources, although financial management is required. His subordinate manager will fulfill the role of "hands" with which reports will be drawn up, operational actions and other routine will be carried out. In fact, such a pseudo production manager can be called an employee rather than a manager. The flow of information to the floor manager will be somewhat incomplete, and because of this, there will be problems of incorrect evaluation or of a wrong decision. Who will get bumps? Right, production manager! That, in turn, will try to pretend to be dead, and will transfer all the "troubles" to the workers. The situation is corrected simply and difficult at the same time. It is necessary to retrain the manager and make him a pure financial manager. The difficulty lies in the fact that habits in a short time does not change.
But the worst option is when a financial manager is put on production. The postman will flourish here. This is when the manager simply sends letters to the tasks of his employee with a request to sort out and give an answer. The complete unwillingness or inability to penetrate into the process of production and resource planning, makes the result of the "management" of such a manager dangerous for the team and the enterprise. The blows with the whip will fall on the workers all the time, because they themselves managed the time budgets, personally called some time limits, allocated resources, if they were mistaken in their estimates, then the SSZB. To fix this state of affairs is very difficult.
Additionally, it is worth paying attention to such a concept as responsibility . When a manager “communicates” with a manager, there is only financial responsibility between them. If the budget is spent, and the result is far from the intended, then only the manager is responsible for this, who could not transform the financial task into an achievable production plan. When the flow of money resources was cut back or plans changed, only the manager was to blame for all financial failures.
The responsibility of the employee to the manager is to perform the tasks, that is, to effectively dispose of his time and intellectual resources. Responsibility for the incorrect allocation of resources lies only on the production manager. Even if the employee himself called his deadline for completing the task, the manager’s acceptance of this deadline in the calculation immediately removes the employee’s responsibility for non-fulfillment of the announced declarations.
Understanding the type of responsibility for the decisions made will help you understand what “language” you are talking in now, and whether you are doing it right.
I hope this article will somewhat clarify the essence of some failures or problems in your company, or vice versa, why you are successful, you bloom and smell.
Good luck with your business!
I often hear phrases that “the head is a freak,” “PM *** and demands the impossible from us,” “we are struggling with a hell of problems because the management creeps under the customer,” “we were made guilty and fined not that "and so on. The developers are outraged by the actions and decisions of their managers (or lack thereof), the managers carry out punitive operations in relation to the “parasites” and “gouging”, the top management conducts raids on vilization of everyone in a row so that the process of making money does not stop.
Reflecting on the reasons why this is happening, I came to the conclusion that there are several mistakes in the actions and decisions of the management staff. Managers of different levels should communicate with each other in a special “language” that is specific to each specific level of management. We will talk about these "languages".
Industrial and financial management
Many managers do not see the difference between these two concepts, although there is a huge gap between them. Let's take the standard, simplified to the maximum, the structure of the company.
Employees personify the company's production. These are those who directly create material values ​​(this term sounds somewhat ironic when it is applied to the levels of electrical signals recorded as the degree of magnetization of certain sections of metalized surfaces)
')
Managers who directly manage employees are production managers.
Any other manager who controls non- employees will be a financial manager.
"Language" of communication between the employee and the manager
The employee provides the employer with his time and intellectual resources, receiving in return a monetary reward for using them. The production manager manages these resources, having a complete picture of the employment of each employee. For more effective management, various methods of setting tasks, planning, building reports, communication, and information exchange are used.
So what language does the worker communicate with the production manager? In the language of resources. The task of the manager is to ensure the effective use of labor and time resources (and he has no others at his disposal). To do this, he needs to have an exceptional amount of information about the production process; without this, the manager becomes a banal postman who shifts the letters from one box to another.
"Language" of communication between the manager and the head
The head does not have to manage the workforce; his tasks include financial planning, managing the costs of production, ensuring the overall business process of the company. And with subordinate managers, he should speak only in the "language" of money. It sounds somewhat strange, because he must know about the production processes in order to at least somehow effectively plan. Absolutely right, he should know. Managers in submission should provide information on the costs of production, but all this is expressed only in monetary terms.
Take a simple example. There are such entities as the budgets of resources, time, labor resources for the production of certain software. Ask yourself what is all of the above? The word "budget" already means money. Whether it is important from the point of view of money, who exactly will create the project architecture, or who will write the device driver, will it be labor resources of the company or outsourcers? Absolutely not. The manager should simply invest in the budget, which is an expensive part for the enterprise.
Tower of Babel
Problems in the company begin with the fact that different levels do not communicate in their "languages". Any attempt to shift the task of costing or financial planning to an employee is doomed to failure. The employee is not interested in taking on additional responsibility, and he does not see the whole picture of expenses. We will not consider this option for objective reasons.
There are many problems when a production manager grows to a manager, but does not change his habits of managing resources, although financial management is required. His subordinate manager will fulfill the role of "hands" with which reports will be drawn up, operational actions and other routine will be carried out. In fact, such a pseudo production manager can be called an employee rather than a manager. The flow of information to the floor manager will be somewhat incomplete, and because of this, there will be problems of incorrect evaluation or of a wrong decision. Who will get bumps? Right, production manager! That, in turn, will try to pretend to be dead, and will transfer all the "troubles" to the workers. The situation is corrected simply and difficult at the same time. It is necessary to retrain the manager and make him a pure financial manager. The difficulty lies in the fact that habits in a short time does not change.
But the worst option is when a financial manager is put on production. The postman will flourish here. This is when the manager simply sends letters to the tasks of his employee with a request to sort out and give an answer. The complete unwillingness or inability to penetrate into the process of production and resource planning, makes the result of the "management" of such a manager dangerous for the team and the enterprise. The blows with the whip will fall on the workers all the time, because they themselves managed the time budgets, personally called some time limits, allocated resources, if they were mistaken in their estimates, then the SSZB. To fix this state of affairs is very difficult.
Additionally, it is worth paying attention to such a concept as responsibility . When a manager “communicates” with a manager, there is only financial responsibility between them. If the budget is spent, and the result is far from the intended, then only the manager is responsible for this, who could not transform the financial task into an achievable production plan. When the flow of money resources was cut back or plans changed, only the manager was to blame for all financial failures.
The responsibility of the employee to the manager is to perform the tasks, that is, to effectively dispose of his time and intellectual resources. Responsibility for the incorrect allocation of resources lies only on the production manager. Even if the employee himself called his deadline for completing the task, the manager’s acceptance of this deadline in the calculation immediately removes the employee’s responsibility for non-fulfillment of the announced declarations.
Understanding the type of responsibility for the decisions made will help you understand what “language” you are talking in now, and whether you are doing it right.
I hope this article will somewhat clarify the essence of some failures or problems in your company, or vice versa, why you are successful, you bloom and smell.
Good luck with your business!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/151497/
All Articles