2 Engineers, 1 website.

 

Financial Jiu Jitsu will teach you how to gain leverage in the real world, step by step, until you are confident you no longer need more.

Maintain Composure for Money

Maintain Composure for Money

Behold a tale of 3

the good manager

This manager was always able to defend his decisions with facts and logic. Not only did he rely on his personal expertise but he helped his team develop their own skills. When he was responsible for a project he would assign it to his engineers and retain personal responsibility for the success of said project. Would do 40 hours a week like all of his reports, and when they showed up for overtime he did it right next to them. He would at times become displeased, always rightfully so, but never lost his temper or said anything rash.

This manager worked as long as he liked until he retired from the company on good terms.

the bad manager

This manager made attempts defend his decisions with facts and logic. He had a limited area of expertise which was different than that of his employees, in that way he could not help mentor them to become more proficient in their own areas. When he was responsible for a project he would assign it to his people and he would not retain personal responsibility for the success of said project (ie if it failed, which they oft did, he would blame his reports for the failure in question.) He would do 35 or less hours a week but required his reports to do 40 or more. Frequently his employees would put in overtime. He would at times become displeased, for whatever reason, but never lost his temper or said anything rash in front of anybody in the company.

This manager worked as long as he liked until he retired from the company on good terms.

the ugly manager

This manager made attempts defend his decisions with facts and logic, and would also frequently argue with feelings as evidence. He had an area of expertise that was the same as his employees, but he did not help mentor them to become more proficient. When he was responsible for a project he would assign it to his people and he would not retain personal responsibility for the success of said project (ie if it failed, which they oft did, he would blame his people.) On the other hand, when a project was successful he would claim all the credit behind closed doors and use it to further his own career. Would do 40 or less hours a week but required his reports to do 40 or more. Would rat out employees he didn't like for missing even 15 minutes by getting coffee or smoking. Yes he was one of those people. Almost every week his employees would put in overtime. He would at times become displeased, for whatever reason. Occasionally his temper would be lost and he said rash things in front of various members of the company. Including the owners and people that did not report directly to him.

This manager was let go from the company on bad terms after many years there.

So what was different between these 3 managers?

All kinds of things were different. They had different attitudes, experience, work ethic, and methods. Their individual traits could be construed as better than others, but only by resorting to your personal value system would you be able to classify any particular trait as better or worse than another. For example: some believe that once you have put many years into a profession, you are allowed the perk of leaving early on occasion. Some people believe that you can require employees to do overtime, some do not. Some people even believe it is ok to snitch to bosses about things which may or may not be true. There are many gray areas of employment at any level. Managers in general will handle the job in very different ways. Columbus and Bligh both successfully captained ships, if you will recall, though they had remarkably different personality types.

The Good and The Bad retired, and left the company on good terms. They are free to pursue employment with sparkling recommendations and references for years to come. It is likely no red flags will be raised prior to hiring either of these gentleman. Even though they have severely different managing styles and one would likely out-perform in the long run, neither would be distinguishable from the other in the interview process. 

What was of top-tier importance was this:

The Bad manager left the company on less than ideal terms. This was caused by his not maintaining composure at work. It is doubtful he will retain references as effectively due to loss of composure on several occasions. This will be easy to detect in interviews or when references are contacted, trust me. 

We all know that the larger a company becomes, the less merit is bestowed to individuals based on performance. The metric of performance is replaced with other more superfluous traits like charisma, looks, seniority, etc. It becomes paramount to maintain your cool at all costs in an environment like this. Simply put: You will not be promoted/recognized if you do not always remain composed. I know for a fact loss of composure can be the single largest detractor for an otherwise promising candidate, despite their numerous other real and perceived character flaws. 

Of course, we have all lost our ability to stay in control at times. Nobody is perfect. At this moment I refuse to type the boiler plate "keep trying and improving and it will all be ok we all make mistakes blah blah blah....." Which would be totally redundant in today's world and quite frankly a literary cop-out. Go to a competitor's blog if you need a dose of that feel good stuff today, 'cause there ain't none here.

If you want to win any particular work-related game, composure is not optional. And yes, that is a period.

DDave
Performance Vs. Manipulation

Performance Vs. Manipulation

Live large like a socialist? Et tu, Sanders?

Live large like a socialist? Et tu, Sanders?