Diligence

Friday morning. Seven o'clock and I step into the Supermarket near home. This is the opening hour, and within minutes I look around and the place is full. People arrive, fill their carts, say hello and goodbye and move on. Every time, this simple operation fills me with pride to the place in which I live. In Tel-Aviv for example, Before Ten o'clock in the morning, no one wakes up, surely does not find him or herself in the Supermarket. I always feel proud; we have diligent people.
Many people have spoke about the importance of diligence. Voltaire has said that "The richness of a country depends on the amount of diligent people it holds"; Samuel Johnson claimed that " '''Few things are impossible to diligence and skill". Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that "Moderation and diligence are the true cure of the humanity", and in the Bible, in Proverbs, the book of wisdom, that was written by King Solomon, we find the saying: "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom".
Diligence is ascribed, from what is said, to wisdom and success. Yet, I have a feeling that this word, the "diligence" has to be reminded sometimes, as we hear and use it less and less. I checked in Google and found only approximately 6 million times the word was mentioned. Wisdom, in comparison, is mentioned 76 million times, success 435 million times, beauty 659 million times and love is mentioned 2 billion times!
I can continue and compare diligence to many other words, but there is no need: The case is loud and clear. Diligence has lost its glory.

I believe, that even though we are in the 21st century, it is very important that our employees are diligent and that we nurture them in this direction. Why? Because diligence is probably an essential component in good performance; however, there is an additional reason: Diligence is an essential component also in entrepreneurship and in the organizations ability to maintain not only in the presence but also to step towards the future.

The interesting question is what is diligence in the practical level and how do we achieve it. I will share with my understanding of diligence and my way to it.

There are several aspects to diligence:
First, a diligent employee works enough hours and does not tend to miss hours or days of work. I speak with people who I interview to work, and explain that the work is at minimum nine hours a day. Many times, more is required. The truth is that I do not really require much more, unless we experience peeks. Organizations who demand 11-12 hours a day, do not deal, to my opinion, with diligence. I believe it is more like taking advantage of people. Diligence is positive, yet our body and souls need the rest so we can continue contributing also on the next day and week.

Another aspect to deal with diligence has to do with the time in which we respond and act. If missions are delayed up to the last moment, or performed almost as they are held out. I have learned that missions that are performed rather early take me less time, twofold: We remember the setting and all related details and therefore save energy of re-entering the subject. Furthermore, remembering we have another task, and trying to remember all details (until we start) takes energy and attention. A diligent person starts early. In the Bible, we find two people that started early: Abraham, who got up early in order to fill God's request to sacrifice his son Isaac; and Bilam, who got up early running on to curse the people of Israel.

The last aspect, regarding diligent, as I see it, has to do with the work we carry on. In every job, in every role, there are parts that are enriching, parts that challenge us intellectually and other parts are less cherishing. Sometimes we think a less skilled person could fill in, sometimes it includes parts we do not like to do.
Even though it may be not the definition of diligence, I found out, that diligent people never say no to a mission, also if they do not fantasy it. They never say they are overqualified, or that they were not hired for this type of missions. Diligent people are prepared to work. Even if it is work, and not fun.

How do I achieve diligence within my employees?
I do so in two simple ways:
a) I demand diligence from all employees, in all three aspects mentioned.
b) I try to give them a good example. Role modeling.

Does it work? I believe so. Even though we are in the 21st century and diligence is not a sexy or trendy word, the employees are diligence. I indeed appreciate them for that.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Employments leaving work

It is natural, in a blog dealing with management issues, to deal also with employees who leave. I admit, that I always was too frightened to write a post on this A live blog is not a book on the shelf. I knew that no matter when I will decide to write about leaving employees, the timing would be bad. Once, an employee decided to leave; some other time, someone did not fit in and we announced that s/he should leave. Even if not all these situations are relevant, I may put the existing employees under pressure, just by writing such a post, fearing from some unannounced plans.
Yet, I believe there is place for such a post, as the blog tries to examine all aspects of management. Therefore, I sat and started writing.

There are three types of situations of leaving employees: There are employees who retire; there are employees who leave in order to work in some other organization; and, there are employees who we decide to dismiss. An organization who nurtures a close relationship between the organization and the employees, hurts when the employees leaves, no matter what the circumstances are. An uncomfortable feeling exists among everyone: The employer, the employee who is leaving, and all surrounding employees.

Yet, different emphasis should be put in each of the three types of leaving employees:

When an employee retires, the main risk, organizationally speaking, is loss of knowledge. An employee, who retires, in most cases, has spent many years within the organization. In most cases the knowledge s/he has accumulated, is unique and valuable. It is true, that within the many years of this employee with others in the organization, s/he had built relationships. However, toward this coping, both the leaving employee and his/her friends in work, have time to adjust. From the day we join an organization, we know, that the day will come, and we will retire. Nowadays, that people live longer, and turn older later, many people wait for this opportunity of retirement and plan carefully their second life, after retirement. The emphasis, as has already been noted, is on knowledge retention. The organization has to prepare itself and manage a well order process: deciding what knowledge will be prioritized for retention; deciding what will be documented, and how; deciding what will be accessible to all in an organizational website; deciding what will be transferred to other employees through conversations; deciding whether one employee will fill all job components, or will the role be divided down and passed to several employees. Such a process should be managed. The responsibility of the direct manager of the leaving employee, includes: Initializing the process, prioritizing what knowledge is to be kept, and more important, what knowledge can be dismissed (one can never pass all knowledge). The manager has to decide who will take in place (one or more); how soon should the process start before the employee leaves; and, when the knowledge transfer takes place, to see that it actually happens in the right quality and pace.

We should not degrade the complexity and importance of this process. We are speaking about employees who work many years in the organization, and knowledge retention is not as simple as we wish. Knowledge transfer will not happen by itself. We must understand, that if we even do everything possible, the expertise is lost, and parts of the knowledge remain, The objective of a knowledge retention process, is too retain, as much as possible of the knowledge. In many cases, the manager is not aware enough, and knowledge transferring takes place, but not in the right pace or effectiveness. There are written methodologies how to handle this issue, and I will not elaborate about the "how", just say- it must be done.

There are organizations in which the retiring employees turn to be consultants after they leave. In many cases, these employees earn more as consultants, and managers have to understand that this is not a healthy situation, as these employees tend to keep their knowledge to themselves in the years toward retirement. Our dependency grows bigger every generation.

There are employees, who leave the organization, on their own will. It is very common, as we witness nowadays, changing careers and changing places of work. Yet, organizations feel uncomfortable from these moves. The employees who stay in the organization, feel that maybe, outside there are better opportunities, and maybe they are mistaken for staying. The managers find it hard to accept. I once had a manager who was insulted from every employee who decided to leave her. After their decision to leave, she remembered mainly their faults, and we all have faults, even if we do a good job. Israel is a rather small country, and in such a market, people probably meet again in conferences, exhibitions, as suppliers or customers. In some cases, they even find themselves working together again, in some other place. Also if not, the manager has to know to control his/her feelings even if they feel betrayed from the move. Business-like behavior and no expression of positive feelings are the best in this situation. Even if the employee left after the organization has won a new project depending on this employee; even if there was an understanding with this employee on a planned promotion, leaving others behind. Behave business-like and express no bas feelings. Do not say any bad word, not even to the other managers. Of course not to other employees. Difficult, but recommended.
In this situation, knowledge has to be transferred, but it usually is much easier than in cases of retirement.

The most difficult situation, as I see it, is when we as managers, fire an employee. Sometimes such a situation is a necessity, whether because of economic circumstances or because the employee is not the right man for the right job. Certain issues should be addressed in this case:
First, we as managers must consider whether to enable the leaving employee stay in the office after the announcement, or do we disconnect him/her immediately asking them to take their belongings and leave. The answer is complicated and varies from one situation to another. It depends if the employee works in connection with customers and how the immediate leaving will influence the organizations connection with them; it depends how unique is the knowledge the employee carries and how critic is the knowledge retention process. It depends on the risk of knowledge theft by the leaving employee; and it depends, on how immediate leaving will ease the departure, or make it harder.

Another important issue to be addressed is how to prepare an employee to this traumatic situation?
There is no doubt that every dismissed employee experiences a trauma, at some level. I was once dismissed, and I believe this a situation that I will not ever forget. Above the insult, work is our major source of income and stability. Without work, most employees cannot continue. When we here such an announcement of loosing our job, we feel as in an earthquake. What can I suggest as an employer? When possible, prepare the employee before. If the circumstances are of someone less suitable for the job, speak about it a few times with the employee, urging him/her to improve explaining implications of not improving. If they improve- everyone wins. Even if not, at least we partly prepared them for the coming. I do admit, this is not as easy as it may sound. I find people having a hard time passing the message. They try to be nice to the person, with whom they are speaking with and tend to soften the message, leaving the employee with a different understanding. The receiving person, on the other hand, also may misunderstand the message even if things are said, again, as it is not a pleasant message. I do not have solutions for all cases. I just think that passing the message and preparing the employee towards the announcement of him/her leaving. If I did not speak myself with the employee about leaving, I call to say good-bye and good luck. I find this behavior very important and assisting.

Another issue when we dismiss an employee, is how to communicate the leaving to customers and suppliers. How do we communicate it to other employees? Also here, I must admit, there is no one simple answer, but one leading thought: We must be honest, while keeping the employee's honor. It is important to communicate something true, yet leave respect. We can give part of the details, yet we must speak. Customers will understand.

It is important to communicate the announcement to all other employees, almost immediately. I do this, by writing an email at the end of the day in which the announcement took place, A formal, yet supportive email, speaking about the circumstances, and expressing my real sad feelings.
We must remember, that things that we do not communicate, will be passed by rumors. It is also better if we pass the message and leave as less as we can in the open.
In rare situations, I even spoke about the situation with groups of employees, taking advantage of existing staff meetings, enabling people to share their feelings. It all depends on the situation.

The last question to do with this issue concerns knowledge transfer. Most dismissed employees will not find it appealing to help the organization preventing the knowledge loss, and to transfer on what they know. As this move is a planned one, part of the planning has to speak with the direct managers of the intended to leave employee, and decide how to handle the critic knowledge, parts of it shared even before the announcement takes place.

The issues are out there, they are not simple, and therefore I find myself writing such a long post.
If I have to sum it all in one sentence- knowledge to the organization, honor and sensitivity to the employee.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Organizational Structure

Henri Fayol, a French management theoretician, defined, already in 1916, fourteen management principles that have turned to a well-known list for all managers. Among the list are principles of rewarding, the management chain, the fraternity of the group, and more. One of these principles, that we find discussed also by many other management theoreticians, is the principle, that every employee has one manager instructing him and in charge of him. This sounds as a very natural principle; multiplicity of managers for a single employee can confuse him, can decrease efficiency (caused by holes in time when each manager is partial in charge) and can raise organizational political problems when conflicts develop. The list of potential problems is long, and it is reasonable therefore, that organizations were based many years on a hierarchical structure.

However, in the past years new needs develop questioning the correctness and fitness of the classical hierarchical organization structure for all purposes and for all circumstances. As many workers are knowledge workers, an important parameter influencing both on the needs and on the implacable solutions.
Knowledge workers are workers that knowledge takes a significant place in their activities. Developing the knowledge is a central component of their professionalism.

How does such a worker learn and develop his knowledge? Knowledge develops through personal experience, through team working, and by having a guiding manager pushing one up:
Personal experience exists, independent of the organizational structure. If we want to leverage it, it is preferable that the experience is diverse.
Working in teams enables us to learn from our colleagues who may have different education, skills and characteristic. The organizational structure does have influence on teams in which each employee is assigned.
The manager and his ability to guide are surely influenced from the organizational structure.
All three are intensified when the organizational structure is not hierarchical, when the worker has an opportunity for more diverse activities, taking part in several teams (including different people) and working with several managers, each manager adding his observation.

Based on these, I have set, several years ago, a heterarchy organizational structure, in the company, which I manage. The Internet defines a heterarchy organizational structure as a form of organization resembling a network or fishnet, where authority is determined by knowledge and function. Such a structure resemble the matrix known organizational structure (also called "M-form"), but is rather loose. It is a network, but not as strict as the classical matrix having employees assigned to two well-defined dimensions of managers. I have adopted this structure, and it may seem like cognitive dissonance, but I see its advantages every day.

The managers in my company each have a different combination of education, experience, skills and character, all relevant to the profession in which we specialize. In each project, we decide ad-hoc, which manager will lead and who will be included in the team of work. We will always recommend part time participation, enabling the team workers to continue their participation on other projects at the same time.

In practice, this project assignment method brings to a situation, in which every employee experiences diverse activities, is assigned to several teams, in which he learns and shares every time, his knowledge with different people. Furthermore, the professional manager varies from project to project, and the employee benefits learning from the experience of various managers (usually more senior).

Six month after I ruled this organizational structure, I found out its name (the heterarchical organizational structure) and learned that a researcher, named Hedlund, wrote an article, already in 1994, claiming that knowledge based units, as R&D, should be managed according to this structure. Hedlund defined principles for heterarchical management, and coined this method "the N-FORM", N standing for novelty, or new.
The novelty of this model compared the classical M-FORM, is:

1. Combination of issues and people in the N-FORM, compared to defined distribution in the M-FORM.
2. Temporary constellations of people and units in the N-FORM, instead of stable fix organizational structure in the M-FORM.
3. Importance of staff in "low" organizational levels and importance of dialog between functions and groups in the N-FORM, rather than managing the interface in high management levels, in the M-FORM.
4. Wide organization communication in the N-FORM, instead of top-down communication in the M-FORM.
5. A role of catalysts and architects of communication infrastructure, defined for the higher management, preserving the investment in knowledge in the N-FORM, rather than guiders, controllers, monitors and resource allocation definers in the M-FORM.
6. A heterarchical organizational structure.

How do I protect my employees from confusion, inefficiency and organizational politics? I admit there is no full answer, but these challenges are addressed by assigning one (managerial) manager for each employee, to whom this employee reports regarding vacations and sickness, with whom s/he consults with when some high-level conflict rises, and with s/he speaks when they need to share their thoughts or feelings.

As everything in life, there are no advantages without disadvantages. In order to help the suggested method actually work, good work-team between the managers must exist. They must know how to cooperate; moreover, they must show good will. When good will is missing, the difficulties grow bigger, and the advantages are not as promising.

When managers work in cooperation, everyone benefits. The employee benefits from improving development of knowledge and professionalism, as to the diversity in all dimensions described; the organization benefits improved quality.

For the time being, I am an exception in this method of management. It is interesting to know how organizations will structure their knowledge-based units ten years from today.
Until then, let us wait with patience.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Tradition

As a Jewish Israeli child that has been brought up in US, I remember back at home, the same songs, played repeatedly on my parents' gramophone. One of the songs I remember brightly is "Tradition" from "Fiddler on the roof". The musical is a personal story in a world of traditions, back at the beginning if the 20th century in Russia: The Jewish tradition, the classes' status tradition ("If I were a rich man"), the tradition that grants different rights and different authorities to genders, and the tradition of matchmakers, a tradition that Tzitel, the fiddler's daughter, tries to break.
The song on "tradition" returns to me, again and again, and leaves me with nostalgia and a good feeling. Yet, if I stop and listen to the words, there is not even one sentence that I can see that I identify with. The issue folds in it a conflict: On the one hand, tradition produces feelings of a warm and friendly environment; on the other hand, as the Etnix band have sung: "tradition is the enemy of advancement and progress".

What is the place of tradition in organizations? Is it right to nurture it and how should it be done?
I am celebrating, these days, ten years of running my company. A decade. I have gone through a long journey and yet it went so fast, and seems rather short. Again, the conflict rises:
On one hand, there is so much yet to do. we came here to work, innovate, earn and lead a change. Why look at the past? Why spend time and effort on traditions and memories that take us back? What could it help?
On the other hand, I feel, both as a manager, and as a person, that tradition and memories do have their place in the organization and should be honored rather than swept out.

Tradition has clear advantages: It enables people to strength their belonging feelings, to feel part of the organization in another dimension: Not only part of some offices; not only tools and methodologies; and even- not only values. Tradition is something shared that passes in the air very simply. It makes us feel better. It makes us feel belonging to something bigger.
Tradition also crystallizes.
Tradition, so I hope, is another factor that makes people prefer and stay in the organization and not look for other opportunities outside the organization. Tradition makes the people, when they are part of the organization, deal better with daily difficulties (and we have no choice, difficulties always exist). Tradition makes them feel better. Tradition.

How does this stand in one line with "the enemy of advancement and progress?" We, as human beings, need probably both: both Tradition and revival; both anchors and stability together with the ability to change; both the feelings that tradition produces together with legitimization to create and fly high and far.
The challenge of tradition, therefore, is more complicated. It should enable, but not block; It should be part of the background but should not gain control. We have to remember that few are the organizations that survive due to tradition only.

How do we produce tradition in the organization? I will start from the bottom line: Money here is not the main issue. One cannot order tradition, pay for it, and mark it with a V sign. One must invest. Invest and be consistent. And after all these- wait. Time is an important part when speaking about tradition.

What and how? Hereby are several factors that produce and nurture tradition:
Holidays. Naama, one of the managers under me, taught me and insisted repeatedly, until I understood and assimilated that every holiday must be celebrated. I always came with a pragmatic attitude that every company meeting, and every minute in it, should be utilized: More methodologies, more teaching people, more professionalism. Tradition is important, so she always reminded me: It is important to eat an apple with honey together before the Jewish new-year, and we must finish eating together all the ""Hametz" before Passover. From year to year, the place of tradition in the company, based on celebrating Jewish events, grows greater. From two celebrations a year, we started celebrating more holidays, and in between, we find new opportunities for additional celebrations, from all kinds of types.

Tradition can also be nurtured through simple ceremonies and customs that are repeated from time to time. The ritual produces the tradition. Smoking breaks, of part of the people together produces tradition (in this case, tradition has also disadvantages). Tradition evolves through our monthly ritual of giving, every month, a symbolic prize as to something special he or she did the passing month. Tradition evolves only because it is done consistently every month, already for years.

Tradition evolves through building new memories together and speaking about existing memories. We see to it that in every company trip or company event, we take pictures (so easy nowadays), and in the last years it even turned more sophisticated as we make a clip after each event. It is much more pleasant to remember, and much easier too. In relevant events, we turn back to the past and share the memories. Share those who took part in past events, and share and explain to those who were not there yet. Share through stories, through pictures, through feelings. Build and strengthen the tradition.

I am celebrating, these days, ten years of running my company. I surely can say that we produced a company tradition. A tradition inside the company and a tradition in larger groups, both with our customers, both with the Israeli Knowledge Management community. We went a long way, but do hope that the main way is still in front of us. We hope we smartly combine tradition and advancement. We hope to continue marching in the pace, and making others follow. We hope to produce many more (good) traditions that make all feel belonging, feel sharing and feel good.

Sorry for being so sentimental today. I promise to come back to myself in the next posts.

Yours,
Moria

to the Hebrew version

Measurement

A known saying among management people, speaks about measurement:
Whatever cannot be measured cannot be managed.
The importance of measuring is obvious.

Measurement enables us, first if all, to examine if an activity we held, succeeded. We measure whether we succeeded in achieving targets we defined in advance. As our world is not white and black only, measurement deals not only with examining if we reached targets, but also, as a way to measure how close have we reached.


However, measurement has several additional advantages, above the measurement of success and targets achievement:

Measuring is our way to examine the path we have chosen, in order to help ourselves refining the path and learning how to proceed, instead of waiting for the end, and possibly even fail. Early measurement can point out ways how to fix problems before they grow large, and show us the way for improvement; Measurement, hereby is defined against methods and techniques, not only against results.
Measuring is our way, on the ongoing, to identify trends and changes that pass nearby, without us noticing them otherwise.
Measuring is our proof to authorities or customers, external and internal ones, that we act as declared.

Measurement is a positive step. It takes us forward and is a base for comparison.

Yet, a few points should be noticed, clarifying the essence of measurement and the way it is obtained far more complicated than we would like it to be:

Albert Einstein said: "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted…" What can we learn from this sentence?
We have to be cautious not to search the coin under the street lamp. Too many times we rush our way to measure, ending with a set of indicators and measurements that measure what is simple, rather what is important. Start with targets, and measure the important factors regarding these targets; do not yield for the easy way.


Another complexity drives from it being easy to measure results, but not as easy to segregate the various factors of the result and understand how much our activity contributed to this result. For example, if there was a successful activity held by the company, yielding positive business results, and we decided to reward all employees involved. A month later, we measure the employees' satisfaction and find it high. How can we know, from the satisfaction measurement only, whether satisfaction is triggered from the bonus or maybe from the professional success they took part of? Moreover, the opposite can happen as well: We can proceed successfully, yet an external result, such as the economic crisis we are experiencing now, will shade turning the business results negative. It is possible, that if we would not hold the company activities, results were worse, but we really cannot know; segregating is difficult. This complexity is one of the reasons that drive qualitative measurement. Qualitative measurement deals with the impression created: What impression did people get from the activities held? To what point did the activity contribute to success? To what point was it successful, even though failure? In most case, people are intelligent enough to segregate factors and give us a reliable answer.

Complexity drives also out of the measures and measures' indicators we set. Naturally, we as people are subjective, and our assessment differs from the one of our colleagues. If they would run the activity, possibly we would have a different list of measurements, and a different list of results yielding. This challenge turns greater when we evaluate people, rather than activities. A person that may think he is friendly and a teammate can be considered from the viewpoint of his manager, as a soloist. And this is only one example among many.

A last tip regarding while managing people and activities:
Measure values, at least as measuring the results. Values represent the strategy by which we wish to act. If these are correct, and people work by them, we are on the right road.


After all these, I wish to end with a proverb. This time, not a quote of Albert Einstein, rather a old Indian proverb: "You can measure how deep is the well, but cannot measure the deepness if the heart".
The people and their hearts are important as least as the activities (the well).
Let us measure; however, let us remember and cherish the deepness of the heart.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Conflicts

Conflicts are natural; it is natural that different people will have different opinions; it is natural that different people will have different agendas which they wish to promote. Therefore it is natural that conflicts will take place.

We all tend, and so do I, to refer to conflicts as a negative issue. Nevertheless, as our world is complicated, we must notice, that there are also good results caused by conflicts (and I wish to thank the leading and control guide and the free library of management):
Conflicts help to sharpen and to bring some issues to our awareness;
Conflicts drive people to act upon their truth;
Conflicts trigger organizational and personal energy; if it is channeled correctly, it leverages us.

Yet, if conflicts are not handled and managed, we loose control, and the conflicts can damage both the activities as well as the organization's morality.
Hereby are several factors that can cause higher level conflicts in organizations:
Competitive atmosphere in the office.
Encourages conflicts.
Uncertainty period (low level of security).
Enables conflicts' eruption, caused by the high level of tense.
Unclear definition of job definitions and overlapping between jobs.
Causes people to interfere one in each others job, because of the unclear definition and sooner or later, drives many conflicts.
Low level of communication between people.
Does not cause conflicts directly, but surely enables it, as when there is any suspicion, it turns into an unwanted direction if it is not clarified fast enough,
As best as you can, examine this list and see how you can deal with it. Prevention is always far better than dealing with an existing problem.

Many people speak about finding a win-win situation as a way of resolving conflicts. The idea is based on that, that many times contradicted opinions come from personal interests of the people holding them, but analysis of the interests can build some new shared decision that does not oppose (or only opposes a little) each sides' interests. The idea of mediation is based significantly on this concept. What do I think? A great idea, but surely no "magic maker" as people may tend to believe. Sometime it resolves the conflict, sometimes partly and sometimes it does not do the job. In some cases the conflict is deep-seated and win-win solutions do not exist.

Of course that speaking one with another helps to handle every conflict, and could be a very effective tool. A tool for communication; a tool for being attentive; a tool for understanding differences; and even… a tool for ventilation. Simple- but works.
And, of course that preventing a conflict from being spoke loudly can help, as well as preventing blaming, preventing turning the conversation form issues to people, all these are trivial, yet always correct and surely do their job.

Two tips, I found, that help me:
First, willingness to concede and to give up upon part of the issues that I think are right, not because I am convinced that I made a mistake, but as part as showing the person with whom I am in a conflict that I am trying to find a way to go towards him or her. People act reciprocity. If we go towards them, in many cases, they will come towards us. Simple, but works. This way the conflict can turn smaller and may be handled.

And secondly, another tip, that helps me: Respecting the other person and opinion, even if I disagree with them and do not resolve the conflict itself. There is some issue, which I disagree with one of my workers, how and in what way it should be handled. I tried, two years ago, to give up and let that person handle some big project according to her way. I won't say that there were not good aspects and good results. Yet, as I believed in the first place, there were aspects that I liked less. Now, when a similar project, with the same issue, is again to be handled, I decided to lead it my way. But I do it, both then and now, while respecting the opponent opinion and the person holding it. I am not trying to state that there is no conflict; there certainly is, and we live with it. Not even bad, I believe.

As I said in the beginning of my post, life is complicated. Us understanding the complication and that we have to live and strive not always resolving every issue, and not always having win-win solutions, turn down part of the frustration, and assists us with living with conflicts. Maybe it even weakens some of them.

I wish us all pleasant life, and if possible- Good energy driving conflicts, not annoying ones.

Yours,
Moria

to the hebrew version

A good manager

I am writing this blog, now, over a year. Every time, looking at another aspect, another issue concerning management, trying to highlight it for myself, as well as for the readers. Doing so, I find myself wondering: If we collect all the written literature, here, in other blogs and over the web, in hundreds and thousands of management books, it seems as if, the list of skills required for being, what is called, a "good manager" are...endless.
I feel as if anyone who wishes to fulfill this list and turn into a good manager, should be a superman; some virtuoso that is a and b and c, and so on.

It is important, I believe, to discuss the issue, for two complementary reasons:
The first, as a tool for examining myself, seeking where I should focus my efforts on improving; the second, in order to better choose the subordinate managers and help them develop better, so they best manage their employees.

If I would have to choose five and only five skills of a good manager, I believe I would choose the following list:

A manager is a person who knows to take decisions. To listen, to understand, to ask; to agree, to disagree. But at the end of the day- to take a decision. And to know, that I am responsible and later on, I will not blame my partners nor my employees; not my customers and in no way shall I blame the weather. To take decisions and to be responsible for these decisions.

A manager is a person who knows how to motivate people. Motivate people to act; motivate people to act effectively; motivate people to work with sparkles in their eyes and enthusiasm in their hearts. Motivating people is important in a stable environment of work, however it is much more critical in a changing market as we are experiencing, now, in the 21st century. The changing market causes us to check and recheck our decisions, to refine or even change them due to the circumstances, and to motivate people to act upon these changes.
A manager is a person with a presence; a person, that people actually want to listen to what he or she says, and to follow.

A manager is a person who acts. This has several aspects: Acts- does not find it undignified to work, and to even to perform some dirty jobs. Acts- is connected to the field and continues to deal, even though less, but deals, with the professional discipline, in which the company specializes. Acts- analyzing the past and bringing the future.

A good manager is somewhat different. Creative, knowing how to think out-of-the-box, sometimes thinking otherwise than other people think. Your employees do not expect you to think exactly as they do; the organization needs you to think somewhat different in order to burst out and lead. Moreover, you have to find the right way to proceed, however not always the trivial one. Willing to take risks, and knowing that sometimes we will pay for taking them. Innovative.

A good manager is a person. Empathic, attentive, laughing sometimes, other times angry. Also, having weaknesses. Externalize the person whom you are.
Some of the readers may ask: Does humanity (us being people) compensates for professionalism, for the skills of taking decisions, etc.? The answer is, definitely, no; with no doubts. Being human, and even externalizing it, resembles the attitude to the aero digit. A zero, if it comes before a number (01, 079, 013456), adds nothing. However, a zero digit, added after a number (10,790, 134560) adds a magnitude. It multiplies by factor 10. I believe that humanity acts in a similar way: Without the other skills, it is useless. When it comes above them, its what makes the difference.
Be human. Teach your employees whom you manage, to do the same.

If I succeed to stick even only to this list of skills, I hope and believe that I can be in a situation where I navigate the ship, in the right speed, having smiling sailors on my deck.

I surely try.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version