FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


managers just delay the work part 1





baboosaa
do know that managers have manage work and workers because they don't do the work and don't let others do the work too. This is just like saying that when you blow to make a fire some times you end up putting off the fire.
Or may be the managers are yelling out so much because they do not find it difficult to say infront of their workers that the only thing that is keeping the manager off the table is all just because the person in the front table is talking too much and taking too much coffee breaks.
Managers do need to make it sure that the work is done on time because they don't work particularly for the completion of the work. They just claim to manage.

Bottom line:
Managers prevent the completion of work in time by disturbing the worker.
Should you have a manager?
Tough question?
End of part 1.

baboosaa wrote:
PLEASE READ PART 1 BEFORE YOU READ PART2
May be the word carry a huge burden in itself but the actual work is far more easy to conduct and that's simply the case except abnormal condition.So it's quite wise to be able to make it happen with out 'The managers'.
The reasons are:
1:The work that a manager performs can be done by the person in the work place who usually do all office work. The one who does office work knows about the office work and will learn or know about managing work.

2.It's not that costly like the one who yells -"The manager" and it's also good when you are allowed to work and not disturbed continuously.

3.A lot of time is saved because the staff always have chance to interact with each other and meetings become less when a staff manage the work place.
End of part 2!
But how do you get it?
Meetings ?managers?
OOPS...
Wait for part 3:
Meetings are meet-ends.!!!


Combined two separate threads about the same topic. -ocalhoun
IceCreamTruck
Typically the manager is the last responsible position. Meaning without them the business doesn't run some days. When employees get sick, then they call in to work. Management is expected to be there if they are needed, sick or not. This level of responsibility is not shared down the line, but you can't close the doors just because a couple workers don't come in, and workers tend to unite, so sometimes all the employees walk at once which is usually a real sign of a bad manager.

The best way to put your ideas to the test is to run a business. Nothing should be stopping you from owning your own business. If you don't want to have managers, but instead have empowered employees then you can make that choice. Most business owners put a manager in place so they don't have to deal with employees. Most of the time this decision costs them money, and as a direct result the wages they pay employees are a lot lower. Personally, I too am curious how reliable employees become when you pay them more, and give them responsibility, because it can't always be the case that a manager is absolutely required.

I think workers being so irresponsible is a direct result of paying them so little. It is my hope that I can pay my employees so much they never want to leave, and I will do this by eliminating management positions and passing their duties down to more reliable employees. Sure, if I own a business I don't want employees being a problem, and I think you are on to something here.

I do know this: if experimenting proves that managers are required, then I will not allow a manger working for me to interrupt their employees as you have pointed out. Constantly pushing employees creates a hostile environment because eventually the employees will push back, or quit.

Managers will also only to speak to you this way if you let them. I have told managers that if they didn't stop then I would walk out. When they said something to me again I walked out of the store towards my car, and the manager called me back and said he was just kidding (he wasn't) but I certainly made my point. Walking out is usually a quick way to end the job, so don't do it, but sometimes you have to let them know you are serious.
speeDemon
Why are you making parts? like installments?

Anyway, I think that managers do play a vital role, you can't just remove them from the system of administration and control. It's like saying that, "Why does a country have a government? it doesn't need one, people know what's best for them, they know the real situation, they are the ones affected, so there shouldn't be any government". Even though the statement mostly is true, people can't really control everything around them. There are obvious choice differences and preferences which people show, and hence without a controlling body or authority, 'chaos' should sum it all up.

Utopia isn't in existence, so obviously you need someone to make the rules, and implement them as well, along with changing them whenever necessary.

These thoughts may sound inappropriate for a 'small' management issue (with respect to whole countries in the context), but I believe, relating the situations is viable and the case should be similar, no matter what scale is being chosen.

On the other hand, behaviour of any person can't really be neglected. But saying that all managers are the same/ of the lot you talk about isn't justifiable. You are looking at the problem from a perspective which makes you perceive a shady and blurred image of the whole system put together.
Remember that modern companies didn't just come out of nowhere, they've been in existence for decades without collapsing, so there was something they were doing right, and it always relates to their flow of control, which has been thought of generously by some great minds of times gone by.
IceCreamTruck
speeDemon wrote:
Why are you making parts? like installments?


I did question if the original poster had gotten perspective on the big picture, but I answered his question the only way I know how and that is that generally managers make a lot of money, and all they do is delegate jobs out to other people. If they are really good at their job, then they don't have much work to do. Smile

I have seen what our friend is complaining about in small companies, however. Managers that just delegate, and then they sit back and collect a great paycheck when it's the employees that are really doing well. At least in big companies you don't have to look at these guys long because they move up faster.

I loved being a manager because I don't consider giving people jobs until there is nothing left to do to be real work, or more specifically it's not hard. I kind of miss those days because it was very cut and dry what had to be done in one day, so I got good at making sure there were enough people around to get the job accomplished in good time. In a way it was a lot less complicated than my job is now, but I also made a lot less money with that particular management position.
deanhills
It depends on the quality of the management. I once saw an organization that went through a period of not having a Director of Administration and HR. The previous Director had been excellent to the extent that he had all of the units working according to fixed protocols. Everyone knew how to do their jobs and what steps to follow. When the Director of Administration and HR departed, and there was no one in the position, the workers worked even better than before, as they felt a kind of responsibility to make everything work, no matter what.

Let's say that about two years later a new Director of Administration and HR is appointed, and he fails to get to know how the units work. His performance is mostly one of presentation, reporting to the top management and maintaining the status quo. If people approached him for HR stuff, he referred them to an HR worker, when it was something to do with transportation, he referred the person to the transport unit. Now in that case, it would be better not to have the Director around. And if he should interfere without knowing what is going on, then he would be in the way of getting the job done.

The first Director that had created all the systems, that allowed the units to operate without a Director for at least two years after he had departed, is an excellent manager. He is a motivator and facilitator. The second one a lousy manager. Bottom line, it takes all sorts of managers, some of them are really good at their jobs, others not so good, and the latter can be in the way of getting the job done.
IceCreamTruck
Well said, Dean!
Bluedoll
IceCreamTruck wrote:
Well said, Dean!
Agree
ankitdatashn
Why so much anger against a manager,
Do note his responsibilities are also bigger,
Agree some of those don't care about others,
Some of them treat employees like beggars... Smile
Related topics
what is your Job?
Illegal Downloading, Serious Discussion
Are you on dialup or broadband internet access?
worst jobs competition!!!!!!
The Sims
Programming vs Career
Dungeons and Dragons, in paper issue
Independent Film maker Love, Life and a Dream
Will Microsoft be Microsoft without Bill Gates?
I am broke
Your Part-time Job
If you ruled your country.
How long do you stay on the computer?
Discrimination against Christian - a real case :-)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.