Conference quark::human_relations-v1

        More  often than not, I play the temperamental technocrat, when 
        we get into a conflict mode.
        
        Other tricks are you write your own JPR, Don't wait to be  told 
        what  to do, go looking for things you wan't to do, rather than 
        waiting to be told to do things you may not like.
        
        Don't be afraid to argue with your boss.  Just because they are 
        your  boss  doesn't  mean  they are any smarter or more "right" 
        than you. They just took on a different responsibility...
        
        q

RE: .1

> More  often than not, I play the temperamental technocrat, when 
> we get into a conflict mode.

That's not "managing your boss", it's "mismanaging your career".


> Other tricks are you write your own JPR, Don't wait to be  told 
> what  to do, go looking for things you wan't to do, rather than 
> waiting to be told to do things you may not like.

You seem to be overlooking the reason you have been hired in the
first place: that is, to do the things the corporation needs done
to further its own interests. Your boss is a better judge of what
these specific things are (if only because he is likely to have a
more through understanding of the overall situation). Your like or
dislike of these things is probably irrelevant.


> Don't be afraid to argue with your boss.

I'll go along with that. However, too many people miss the slight
difference between "argue" and "quarell". A better word is probably
"discuss", anyway.


> Just because they are your boss doesn't mean they are any
> smarter or more "right" than you.
        
I beg to differ. Just because "they" are your boss probably means
that "they" are more experienced than you and may be even better
educated. Since "they" did not start at the top of the ladder, it
stands to reason that "they" got to where "they" are after having
gone through a process whereby others had been eliminated. You, on
the other hand, have not gone through that process - you have not
proven yourself yet...

That is not to say that, by definition, all managers are always
right and all subordinates are always wrong. It does mean that, on
the outset, a manager has the right to expect some respect, for the
sheer fact that he has made it to that point, which your response
seems to lack...


> ...They just took on a different responsibility.

Guess not. They were  g i v e n  that different responsibility.


-- Ron

    Discussed in HUMAN::DIGITAL.

    Re: .3
    
    Pat Sweeney,
    
    To date the only response I have seen from you in this note is
    
    >Discussed in Human::Digital
    
    Are you the moderator of Human::Digital, or perhaps a Public Relations
    Flak for that note?  I would think if a topic is being discussed
    in this note the noters deem it appropriate.  If all you have to
    contribute is a pointer to another note why even be involved??
    
    the_wiz
    who_doesn't_have_a_terminal_at_home_to_access_*HUMAN::DIGITAL_!!
    

    Just because a manager has that position, doesn't mean he is any
    smarter. He usually gets that position because he has not kept up
    with techonology and fallen by the wayside. And therefore the only
    position open is a managerial position. He may have also gotten
    that position by attending a managerial school and not know a thing
    about the technology he is managing. Don't believe all managers
    are gods. Some admittedly are smart and belong in there positions,
    but they are few and far between.
                                             
    Tony Bogacki
    

Hi...
    
    	Here is a .com file that will give you a conference of your choice
    in batch.  It is not a super fancy .com file, with lots of fancy
    documentation to go with it, but it works, and will give you a
    .new_textfile in your directory.
    
    Hope it helps...
    
    Gale
    
$ read :=
$ open :=
$ write :=
$ close :=
$ submit :=
$top:
$ if p1 .nes "" then goto got_entry
$ read/prompt="enter class: " sys$command p1
$ read/prompt="Enter Conference Name: " sys$command p2
$ goto top
$!
$got_entry:
$ open/write temp LIST_Conference.TMP
$ write temp "$ notes"
$ write temp "set class ''p1'"
$ write temp "open/noautomatic ''p2'"
$ write temp "extract/all/unseen/seen sys$login:Conference_''p2'.NEW_TEXT 1-last
$ write temp "next unseen"
$ write temp "close"
$ close temp
$ submit$/noprint/notify list_conference.tmp
$ exit

1.  If you complain about EVERYTHING, he won't hear ANYTHING.  Be
    selective and push back only when it's important.  When you DO push
    back, do it constructively.  Be able to justify your position. 
    Avoid emotional responses whenever possible (I know, easy to say).
    
2.  If you like freedom, don't run to him for every little thing.
    Handle your own problems whenever you can, and use good judgement about
    when to involve him.  If you do this successfully, he'll leave you
    alone to do your job your own way for the most part.  That's the
    most important thing I do in my relationship with my manager --
    it's the way I maintain my freedom.
    
3.  No surprises.  I'm a manager myself (BTW I didn't get here by falling
    by the wayside technically -- I'm here because I want to be).  Almost
    the worst thing one of my people can do to me is fail to inform
    me and let me get blindsided by an issue.  I'd much rather hear
    the bad news beforehand, no matter how bad.  I don't believe in
    shooting messengers.
    
4.  Try to bring solutions when you bring your manager a problem.
    
5.  I will admit that all the above require a good manager in order
    to be effective.  A bad manager, for example, is going to be on
    your back no matter how well you execute principle number 2.  I've
    been lucky enough to work for a REALLY good manager for the last
    while, and believe me it's a real pleasure.
    
6.  Managers are people too.  They get measured on how well they perform
    just like you do.  They want to look good in front of their manager,
    just like you do.  Trite as it may be, the ol' Golden Rule isn't
    a bad place to start managing your manager.
    
    						Patricia

    There's a difference between a proper "DECmanager" and a stereotypical
    "Boss".  And there's a difference between a Contributor and a Manager
    in terms of function.
    
    A manager has certain responsibilities, such as budgeting and
    administration, which contributors don't normally have.  A manager
    has to coordinate the work of multiple contributors to see that
    the total workload gets done as efficiently as possible.  A manager
    has to have some degree of "people skills".
    
    A manager doesn't, at least in Digital, *have to have* technical
    skills equal to the contributors.  Management is a *different* job,
    so a manager may not know more than the "subordinate".
    
    The best manager-contributor relationships that I've encountered
    were when the manager realized that he was working for the contributor,
    and not the other way around.  That way the contibutor can get his
    job done and the manager can do his too.  That doesn't mean that
    managers don't have "authority", but they should use it wisely,
    over matters which really are their domain.
    
    As may have been stated in HUMAN::DIGITAL, one of K.O.'s principles
    is that a contributor doing a job knows more about it than his manager.
    It's possible to get to a very high level here without manageing
    people.  It's not common, but the path is open for super-techies.

    re .8
    
    What's that got to do with Managing your Manager??
    
    re .7
    
    Right on!  And why does this seem to be prevalent amongst managers
    who *need* to keep up with technology; ie, field sws managers?
    
    Jon

    re .9, point #6: Pat, based on my own experiences working in the
    field, you've been very fortunate indeed.
    
    Jon

RE:  .12
    
    Jon, I didn't mean to imply that I've never had a BAD manager 'cause
    believe me I have (not at Digital of course (^;).  The kind who looks
    over your shoulder and won't let you make even the tiniest little
    decision on your own.  If you do make a tiny little decision, no matter
    what it is it's wrong because he didn't make it.  About all you can do
    is exist from day to day; you can't grow or develop because you have no
    room.  I've been there. 
    
    I didn't address that situation in terms of "managing your manager"
    because the topic is not relevant to that kind of manager.  Rules 1 - n
    in that case are "Get out as quickly, quietly, and peacefully as you
    can." 
    
    						Pat
    

    re: .13
    
    I see a great deal of importance in the requirement for a Unit Software
    Manager to understand what Software Specialists _do_ (ie AUTOGEN and
    everything else).  Not exactly _how_ by _what_ they do.  (That's the
    difference between a baseball team's _coach_ and the team's
    _accountant_ or _owners_) 
    
    We need more Software Services Unit Managers that understand the role
    of the having the right documentation and media to do the job or the
    give and take which we have with our counterparts in Field Service in
    problem resolution, as opposed to Unit Managers that seem to have more
    interest and insight into the District Managers job. 
                       

    I agree that a manager should have an UNDERSTANDING of what is
    subordinates (sp?) do/need to complete their assignments, and in
    that respect, they should have some technical knowledge if need
    be.   
    
    But, on the other hand, if they do not have that UNDERSTANDING,
    then, they should have the trust in you, when you suggest on the
    way things should be done, things you need to complete the job,
    etc...
    
    Candy
    

    pesenting the selection process of a manager.
    
    bob is a boss.
    bob comes to wok at 7:30 and either works through lunch or goes
    to lunch with his contemporaries and discusses work.
    bob goes home at 6:30 p.m.
    bob says hello to the family, eats, reads the paper and then logs
    on for a little bit of catching up.
    
    he's on until 11:30.
    he does a systat evey now and then to see who is on.
    
    bob notices that pete, one of his people, is logged in.
    pete comes in at 8:00
    pete leaves t 5:45
    pete logs in at home a lot.
    pete works through lunch or discusses work at lunch.
    
    bob is being promoted.
    bob is asked to help locate his replacement.
    bob thinks of all the people in his group and "pete" flashes in
    his mind.
    pete is his kind of guy, comes in early, leaves late, works through
    lunch.
    
    pete is nominated and gets the job.
    
    
    some people in this conference stated that they are "managers" not
    because of incompetance but because they wanted to be.
    I have a belief that people who want to be managers, generally speaking,
    are people who like power and giving orders and, usually, their
    desire to be a manager has nothing to do with their competence and
    abilities. Obviously, there are exceptions.
    I also believe that once a person becomes a manager there is a
    strong push by her/his contemporaries and managers to "act/conduct
    her/himself in certain ways and according to cetain guidelines.
    Just take a look at all the examples of "effective management"
    training that exists.
    	I have known and worked for many very good managers.
    	I have also known some power hungry dolts who could only
    effectively manage to get themselves in deep water.
    	I have also known some inhuman (subhuman?) people who got
    away with being managers and even progressed at it (is this success?)
    because they didn't mind playing the game that is required of man-
    agers in order to be a "success".
    
    	Lastly, I feel that I have a job to do.
    	My "manager" has a job to do.
    	My job is to successfully complete certain tasks.
    	My managers job is to make sure I know and understand what
    these tasks are and to follow up on my progress.
    	We have a mutual agreement contract.
    	In turn for my completed tasks, my manager (DEC) gives me
    benefits and $$$$$$.
    	We work for each other.
                            
    	I do not recognize the superiority of any manager in either
    competence or intelligiance until they display this superiority.
    Which they hardly ever do.
    
    	
    	

    I'd like to add to my pevious reply.
    
    On channel 2 thre are having a series of shows titled "comrades"
    in which they display teh life and times of russian people.
    
    a few weeks ago there was one on a young woman who was a party
    "leader"
    she had been selected to be a party leader at the age of 18.
    
    the seasoned and mature age of 18.
    
    she was selected because, after she grew up being forcefed
    party propaganda, by the time she was 18 she was so gung-ho
    momma russia and the party that the party recognized her
    enthusiasm (brainwashed) and decided to capitilize on it.
    They figured that taking some real eager beaver 18 year
    old and having her display her enthusiam amongst the troops
    would help proliferate the system. They decided that the
    best candidate to put in "leadership" positions were people
    who are very happy to say....
    	"I believe, sir!"
    	"Yes, sir!"
    	"whatever you say, sir!"
    	"It is an honor and a priviledge to give my lif for my
    country, sir!"
    
    	Any one who isn't so enthusiastic (brainwashed) wouldn't even
    be considered for the job and is lucky if she/he doesn't end up
    in siberia for NOT being overly enthusiastic.
    
    	I think for the most part, america and it's corporations work
    with the same philosophy.
                       
    	What say you?
    
    	

Re: .-1, .-2:

If you have described a true story, then you have
had the misfortune of dealing with a *bad* manager.
A *good* manager would make decisions based on a 
variety of criteria; working habits might enter the
picture, but not be the only basis.  Plus, not all
managers are workaholics, mainly those who can't
delegate (another sign of poor managerial skills).

Bruce (a manager in a pre-DEC life)