Job Discussion Forums

[jdl]

I began to follow a simple adage early in my career which has served me very well. "My job is to make my boss succeed and his job easier....if s/he succeeds so do I'. When I became a 'boss' I flipped the adage to read,'My job is to make my staff/employees jobs easier and succeed..if they succeed, I succeed'

The question then became one of "what is easier?" and ''how is success defined?''. Through concept driven and principle focused discussion we usually ended up on the same page and were able to achieve our collective goals....most of the time. At the very least we came to understand each other to a certain degree and realistically appreciate each others talents or lack thereof.....and over time develop some mutual (at times limited) respect and grow as a team. Now, it didn't always work as planned but the alternative was miscommunication, mistrust, failure, animosity etc. I can't think of any boss or teacher going into a workplace with those goals in mind so it always made sense to begin positively and work from there.

Some very basic phrases came to be used mutually as we grew. Phrases such as 'I don't understand...explain it again please', 'I don't know....lets find out', 'What can I do? What is my part?', 'Why not', 'Yes, how can we make that work', 'Ok, what do we need to make that work.'

It was always a learning experience for ALL of us since we, each one of us, had to
1. listen and understand rather that talk and convince,
2. suspend judgement,
3. admit ignorance
4. trust in others but also never be blind to logic,
5. be polite in tense situations,
6. give credit,
7. go home smiling each day.

As you can appreciate this takes some time and usually starts with a critical mass of people...a leadership team who set the norm for the workplace. In toxic work environments it takes more time.

I have found that people for the most part want to be appreciated/ valued, recognized/accepted, respected as contributors to success if given the opening in the work place. This goes for bosses, instructional staff, students, janitors, secretaries....everyone.

Two starting points for a general change in work place culture were saying,
1. "thank you" for what was done
2. "I think I may have misunderstood you, lets get it sorted" rather than speculate on anothers motives/meaning/agenda etc.

In time we (staff) began to treat each other better, had fewer misunderstandings, respected each other more (gossiped a little less or at least called it for what it was), got better results and most importantly smiled a lot more.

Rather long...but it seemed like the time and place.

[johnslat]

Dear jdl,
A most excellent post - having been on both sides myself, I found your points to be fine guidelines to success.
Civility and humility can both go a long way to getting a job done.
As another adage goes: "It's amazing what can be accomplished as long as you don't care who gets the credit."
Which is not to say that the right people necessarily DON'T get the credit, just that getting it isn't their motivation.
Regards,
John

[jdl]

Thank you.

[gaijinalways]

jdl,

I wish it was that simple. The problem is, there are always problems at a workplace, especially involving resources and their lack and/or usage.

I find the biggest problems are more to do with solving problems. Some teachers use minimal resources. What conclusions you wish to draw from that depends on what you expect employees to bring to work. Some teachers do things using minimal resources, thus they don't ask for much.
In one sense they're great for the boss, they don't demand anything, but also in some sense their work performance stagnates, especially if they don't update or take advantage of new resources. Of course people can do a lot with a little, but sometimes you can't do certain things without minimal materials. It's kind of like asking someone to drive the car without any gas in the tank.

Other people like me, I look for ways to improve what I do, especially from the tech end. Unfortunately, I'm not that skilled in that direction myself, but neither are the people above me. Hence my appearance of being demanding in some sense, because I feel that things could always be better in some sense.

So being a good boss is not just a matter of providing equal face time (sorry I might have given you that impression, though it's certainly one important aspect). As spiral78 mentioned, opportunities to do things within your career are important. In the current economic climate, having opportunities to continue working and get the 'better' classes is important. Unfortunately, that seems to entail bending over backwards in Japan , or at least that's the way I see it.

Office politics is not one of my favorite games to play, and that is where favortism does affect a lot of things. Having access to what you want is important, and the squeaky wheels sometimes don't get a lot of grease.

Oh well, sometimes it's time to take the wheel somewhere else. That or as I said, move to where you are the boss, and then you can only complain if you can't afford to buy enough grease !

As to making an employee's job easier, sometimes I never hear from some bosses, sometimes I have solved the problem myself by the time they get back to me, and there are rare times when you get help. Of course I don't expect miracles, but it is nice when people do what they're supposed to do.

As I said, I used to be boss, and I was paid to solve problems. Unfortunately in the educational field, it's not always easy to do that. Kind of like someone asking you to fix the pipe without a plumber's wrench. Sometimes you just do the best you can, come what may.

[johnslat]

Dear gaijinalways,
I only wish the concerns jdl addressed WERE "simple", but, in my experience, they would not seem to be since not handling them in the ways that jdl outlined cause, in my opinion, the vast majority of problems in every ESL/EFL institution that I've worked in over the past twenty-eight years.

"The problem is, there are always problems at a workplace, especially involving resources and their lack and/or usage."

Quite true - but a lack of resources is often something both teachers and coordinators/ directors have little, if any, power to alleviate. And with the teachers you mention, the ones who use minimal resources, well, I think jdl's advice (which is concerned with communication and how to handle "people problem's") seems to me to be relevant.

Perhaps your "appearance of being demanding" is what the people you're dealing with find off-putting. You can usually catch more flies with homey, etc.

Jdl's post dealt, I'd say, with a GOOD deal more than "providing equal face time"; most of it dealt with human relations in the workplace, and what is the most productive way to handle problems that arise among staff.
And I'll be very surprised if too many other people don't think it's exactly in that area that the majority (and the most serious) problems occur.

Regards,
John

[jdl]

gaijinalways

"Sometimes you just do the best you can, come what may."

Sums it all up very nicely.

Office politics are indeed a challenge. When one defines politics as 'the process by which resources are allocated' it becomes clear just how much of a challenge ...especially in an environment in which resources are limited. As you say, 'it is never that simple'. It is easy to be grand in ideal when we are flush with resources; it is another matter to act idealistically when resources are a competitive commodity. "The animals around the watering hole look at each other a little differently during a time of drought'

"Sometimes you just do the best you can, come what may."

Unfortunately, it all won't go away...politics is with us like our skin. What is your plan of action?

[gaijinalways]

johnslat posted

[jdl]

John, Justin, Fladude and Spiral raised the point in various ways that 'we are all different'. That seems to be close to the heart of the matter in that we say we want to be treated equally as employees but with consideration of our individuality. Often we see differentiated treatment of employees as 'favouritism' since we often expect 'all to be treated the same'. This seems to be a bit of a conundrum? Does same mean equal? Can same in fact mean inequitable given that as people we all have different needs, personalities etc. How can 'bosses' and 'employees' sort this out? Spiral says his boss is backing him in a project which is personally and professionally satisfying ....would other staff misinterpret this as favouritism when really the boss is letting spiral do what he does best as a 'perk' in times when resources are becoming scarce and the more tradtional 'security' perks have dried up; in other words, attempting to meet Spiral's higher level needs?

How do we respond to the staff room chatter ( which often is a measure of workplace culture) that goes along these lines: 'why did ___ get that when none of the rest of us did?', 'That's not fair!', 'What makes ___ so different that s/he gets special treatment' etc.

How do we introduce into the workplace the concept of 'one size does not fit all? As teachers we seem to recognize this in the classroom as a truism but we do not see the transfer into the staff room.

Spiral, I have used your example because it seems so 'on the money' vis a vis the 'favourtism' discussion. No offence or misrepresentation is intended. My apologies if I have overstepped.

[johnslat]

Dear gaijinalways,
Sorry for the typo - but I'm confused by this:

"Yeah, I hear you, but there is also a point of doing what we're supposed to do, rather than just going through the motions of pretending to do so."

I don't get the connection. When I was coordinating an English Language Center with a staff of over forty other teachers, I found that being civil and a good listener was a LOT more productive than being demanding.
Whenever I've seen tyrannical (or even demanding) bosses, I've also seem low morale, slipshod work, a very unhealthy environment, and a lot of angst.
If you want your staff to "do what they're supposed to do", then I firmly believe that being open and honest, offering explanations and reasons for tasks, and trying to treat everyone in the best way that you can is tremendously more productive than being demanding.
Moreover, it certainly makes for a much more congenial work environment.
Regards,
John

[jdl]

Agreed, John. Well stated. There is just no substitute for civility and generosity of spirit.

[gaijinalways]

johnslat posted

[johnslat]

Dear gaijinalways,

"If your boss barely says 'hi' to you, you probably won't get those special projects to do unless he/she has esp."

Can I assume, than, that you are not allowed to initiate conversations with such a boss?

Politeness is not (nor did I mean to imply that it was) a "substitute" for competence and efficiency. However, all things considered, given the choice between a polite, incompetent boss and a rude, incompetent one, I believe I'd choose the former.
One possibility you didn't mention was a boss who's rude but competent. And that'd be a tougher choice. Do I want polite but incompetent or rude but competent. I guess I'd choose the latter, but I'd also start sending out lots of resumes.
I guess I was viewing it more from the viewpoint of a boss than that of a regular employee.

"So the demanding part of it doesn't mean not listening, it means I expect some things to work properly and expect timely responses, not responses that are way to late to use if they contain any useful info. I t also doesn't mean being rude either."

I also think we have differing ideas of what "demanding" means:

"Rigorous and unsparing in treating others: exacting, hard, harsh, rigid, severe, stern, strict, tough, unyielding."

http://www.answers.com/topic/demanding

But if I am a demanding boss (and I've had a few), I'd say that the morale of my staff would not be all that high and that I might not even suspect that my way of treating people could be at least partially responsible for such matters as "untimely responses."

Regards,
John

[jdl]

Relationships at work are the means by which the job of the workplace gets done. If there is one area in which all people at work (bosses, employees, consultants...all) need understanding, it is in the area of human interaction and motivation. In environments in which human interaction is not understood, analyzed or recognized as imperative to the job of the workplace it is a matter of mere survival that the individual take responsibilty for setting a personal positive tone by example for interaction with others in the work place. The individual who takes this responsibility will profit both personally and professionally. The workplace will also evolve. Now having said this, assuming this responsibility is a quiet exercise in that it is one of example through principled behaviour rather than word. It requires a strength of character and mind which will be tested. It requires humility in self doubt but the confidence to learn. Should it begin with the boss...of course. Is it only the domain of the boss...of course not. It is an issue all struggle with.

[jdl]

And of course for those with a more entrepreneurial focus there is always money to be made in the area.

[gaijinalways]

johnslat posted