I think that’s interesting behavior since certain managers act real down-to-earth, like I’m just one of the guys, male or female, during these let’s-get-to-know-each-other occasions. Except, I don’t really want to get to know my manager so much in that venue or any other venue for that matter because, for me, there’s a disconnect in the paradigm.

First of all, my manager and I are never going to be friends, really, in the truest sense of the word. How could we be? He or she is my manager and, as sure as the sun is going to set this afternoon and rise in the morning, there’s going to come a time, sooner rather than later, when the manager is going to need something from me, if not daily, and play the I’m-the-manager card.

So, that obviates the friendship pretty quickly because I don’t think asking someone to do something for you as frequently as a manager asks an employee to do something is on the list of how friends interact with one another.

Secondly, I know my manager makes more money than I do, probably a lot more. I figure at least 50% more. Maybe 60%, which is what I think about when he or she is being a good ‘ole boy or girl at lunch. I think about this:

*Since you’re making a lot more money than I am, why don’t we spend this time together talking about how I can advance professionally to make what you’re making?

I know that salary is a taboo subject in most workplaces. Let’s not ever talk about salary because, of course, we’re all here for the good of the company. The money is secondary; that is, when you’re already making nice money. Life is sweet. 

Curious to me, always, how those making the big bucks never want to discuss salary with those who are earning less. At least, that has been my experience. They will, if you bring up your salary, immediately attempt to justify your lower salary as though you’re supposed to be eternally grateful you make 50% to 60% less than he or she does.

Maybe, he or she feels guilty, thinking, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Let’s talk the truth. And the truth is this: Let’s understand you’re my manager, and I’m your employee, and I’m real happy to be working for you. But, don’t try to be my friend at lunch because if, truly, you were my friend, you’d be fighting with everything you have to help me move along in the chain of command.

Why do so many people spend so much time making presentations and spreadsheets that are superfluous to a certain assignment?

I just don’t get it.

So, we have this workflow, a workflow with these real pretty lines and boxes all connected to each other about getting product information from a writer to the final stage before publishing as a brochure or flyer. Are you kidding me?

Why can’t we just send the copy to the graphic designer after copy approval, and ask him or her to lay out the brochure or flyer?

Help me, here.

I’ve been writing for most of life, all sorts of product information, internal magazine articles, Web content, and no one has ever asked me to discuss a content workflow in a staff meeting. But, discuss we did.

So, not only was the workflow graphic a waste of time, we had to waste more time discussing this. I guess no one, except me, thought if the person who had developed the graphic in the first place had been spending her time writing the brochure as she was assigned, we’d be closer to wrapping up this assignment.

All of this talk and all of these meetings about all of these various topics of who is going to do what and how they’re going to do them and what is the process for that person doing them and on and on and on. Does anyone do any work anymore? Or, is the goal now to just talk about doing the work for hours and hours over the course of numerous meetings and discussions and wait until the bitter end when a manager asks if the assignment has been completed?

If you do, I think you need some serious counseling if not complete removal as a manager. Does that make you angry? I hope so.

Of all the managerial infractions, short of a physical altercation, yelling at a team member is the lowest of the low. Truly. You’re not yelling at your subordinate because of something he or she did. You’re yelling at him or her because of an emotional defect.

You’ve subconsciously imagined the person is a person from your past. That person yanked your chain also, and your staff member reminds you of that person. You need help, immediately. Someone in your company needs to talk to you. Someone in your company needs to send you away to a therapist. Someone in your company needs to replace you until you’re able to calm down.

And if your manager is aware of your behavior and does nothing, of if HR is aware of your behavior and does nothing, your company is unfit to work for.

How can companies allow this behavior? Yelling accomplishes less than zero because the person yelled at is immediately degraded to child status and the offending manager is the parent. I’ve wondered often if that’s how many managers manage anyway; specifically, as he or she would parent.  

Are you still with me? Maybe you’ve already clicked out of this post because you thought, “**** this.” I don’t need a blog writer to tell me how to behave. Maybe you do.

Apparently, there are a lot of managers out there who think yelling is cool because I’ve been the brunt of the yelling as have colleagues. One manager reduced a woman to tears because of some pointless, minor infraction. He had a history of yelling. A long history. And our company did nothing about the behavior. Marvelous.

Taking advantage of an employee by yelling at him or her proves that the yelling manager is completely unfit, regardless of his or her performance.

How many of us actually say what we truly think during a conference or a meeting?

This mindset seems to take over in which many of us feel we have to agree with everyone in the room. Certainly, if a C-level person is present, no doubt. But, even without a big C man or a big C woman in the room, everyone puts on their nice hats.

“Great idea.” “Very innovative.” “Interesting.” You hear that a lot from people even if they’re thinking the idea is not great, innovative, or interesting. Why is that? Why can’t we be honest?

I’m thinking about a meeting a few months ago. This writer guy had spent all day trying to write an introduction for our internal marketing portal. We were redesigning the page, and we wanted new content to talk about our new initiatives. Poor guy. After eight hours, his words were way off the mark, which was true for most of his assignments.  

So, our manager comes into the meeting room where we were gathered to review the new portal’s content. She reads his stuff and, immediately, you can sense she’s unimpressed. She starts doing this little chair dance. Shifting her body.  Her arms. Moving back and forth.

“This is a good start,” she says, “but let’s make this more impactful. Let me work on this.”

So, the manager takes the draft, spends all weekend trying to make it “more impactful,” and Monday morning the new portal goes live. The manager changed the copy completely. There’ not a hint of the original version the guy wrote.

Did anyone say anything to him? No. Did anyone counsel him on how he could have written better copy or be a better writer overall? No.

A few months later, the writer guy was laid off.

Moral of the story: don’t bullshit people about their work. Be honest. Be straight up. Counsel them. Help them so, maybe, they won’t be on the list.

And, even if a person’s career is not the issue, what do you have to lose by being honest? Say what’s on your mind, and maybe we can begin to end the play-nice-at-all-costs-game that is really hurting us by discouraging innovation.

When there’s an opening, you’re the chosen one. Who is choosing? The bureaucracy, of course. No cynicism intended. OK, maybe. Let’s say the system looks to you because it knows it can count on you to do the job it needs. Just being in the system is the essential element.

Your career and salary and benefits are on an escalator to the next floor and the next and the next. Sweet. You’ve passed the smell test. What am I talking about?

The executive suite has smelled you, and you’re OK. They, the executives in the suite, know they can count on you. They know how you’ll perform when the chips are up and when the chips are down. A new idea? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe unimportant. What’s important: The suite knows you won’t embarrass them. You won’t make any major mistakes. You’ll maintain the status quo.

But, wait. What about new blood of new ideas?

Transfusions are a tricky concept. A transfusion is a questionable event for some companies. What if the transfusion is bad blood? An unknown quantity. That’s the risk.

How many transfusions were there at GM, Ford, Chrysler? Probably not very many. Did their cars really have to be that bad with really out-of-date technology that resulted in really poor performance and really poor gas mileage? How many ideas were proposed from below to the suite above where everyone had the same blood type, but the ideas were rejected because the blood type was an unknown?

Transfusions? Yes or no?

Should corporations continue only with whom is known or allow transfusions of unknown blood factors to spur innovation?

criticize a direct report in front of the team

yell at a direct report or colleague

gossip about colleagues to my direct reports

act as though I know all the answers

be closed to new information.

Be it resolved, as a manager, I will

be open to new thoughts and ideas

generate new ideas as does my team

encourage my direct reports to reach greater productivity

work in the trenches with my direct reports

create an atmosphere of congeniality.

Thank you.

I think about those two feelings as they relate to managers. Miserable, according to Merriam-Webster OnLine, means “being in a…state of distress or unhappiness.” Enliven means “to give life, action, or spirit to.”

Yes, managers as you know, do have the power to cause unhappiness or give life to because they hire, fire, criticize; they praise, commend, congratulate. All too often, in my experience at least, the latter three words have been absent from their vocabulary.

So, if you’re a manager which category do you fall into? Be honest with yourself.

What have you gained by being critical and what have you gained by being supportive? At the end of the project, did your anger produce anything from your team that wouldn’t have been produced had you been completely supportive? How much better and more pleasant would the experience have been if you had not lost your temper, despite any delays or mistakes?

I think some managers feel they have to be really tough to get their teams to respect them when just the opposite is true. I submit a manager would gain more respect and better team performance by being respectful, cordial, supportive rather than the reverse. But, I don’t see much respect from managers although, I have to say, my current manager is a cut above the rest. He believes in his team and his team believes in him, and our performance is outstanding.

So, I close with an optimistic note that other managers will read these words and think about their managerial style and its effects on the team. Is it time for you to reconsider how you lead? Do you make miserable or do you enliven?

I haven’t been very impressed with the managers I’ve worked for in the past 10+ years. I feel their personalities were not suited for team leading or team building. They have been blunt, harsh, uncaring. Did they observe this behavior in their managers and, so, they feel this was the proper code of conduct?

Either way, in my opinion, that behavior is out-of-bounds. Is a manager’s goal to see how many people he/she can disappoint, upset, frustrate on a daily basis? Is that respected from above if those above even care?

In my experience, I’d have to say, that is respected because, seemingly, those are the personality types that are promoted. The tough ones. The really tough ones. Yes, we respect that. We need to keep everyone on their toes.

I’m not describing managers who require outstanding performance, which is the sine qua non, the essential element of why we’re all here in the first place. I’m talking about managers who yell at their team, who criticize a team member in public, who belittle others, who refuse to acknowledge performance for fear of being overshadowed because he/she hasn’t contributed a useful idea in a decade.

Yes, there are lot of those managers out there, based on my experience and my conversations with others.

So, when we work for these individuals, our performance may be good, but could performance be even better if the words “respect” and “caring” were added to the mix? And for those of you who think I’m being childish by even bringing up the words  ”respect” and “caring” when talking about business performance, consider this: Are people motivated more by fear or admiration?

Rarely, do we hear much about the personality required to be a top gun, and I’m fascinated by this dynamic also because how many male and female executives are questioned about their personalities before they’re promoted to the big time. I’m not talking just about the C-level. How about VP or director or even, lo the thought, manager?

I’m not suggesting a test because those tests are out there, of course, with Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the one that comes to mind. A friend told me recently about a number of people in our company who were asked to take this personality survey. He mentioned one person who is academically brilliant, note I said academically brilliant, and laughed because someone had hinted the guy’s results were less than optimum to be leading a team. The guy has absolutely zero personality skills to be a manager and, yet, no problem, we’re letting him lead anyway.

In my experience the past 10+ years working in two global companies, I’ve had a myriad of managers, and I’m trying to understand still, even now, the personality characteristics that qualified them for the job. There was the first one who said during a meeting with HR about hitting me over the head because I said a colleagues’s work needed improving.

That manager was followed by one who never had a positive word to say about my work other than she wanted to transfer me to another department. The manager’s dour personality matched the morale she fostered while her work was less than stellar.

From there, I had the manager who said working in the same city with my family was unnecessary because he had worked apart from his family many times in his career. He went on to describe how he’d give up vacations for the good of the company at a moment’s notice. And on, and on, and on.

What are the personality standards for management?

I am sure there are some great stories out there about managers. Let us know about your experiences with your managers, and maybe we can make some sense of all this.

1. The C-level walks the talk that employees really are a company’s most important asset.

2. The C-level understands employees cannot continue doing the work of 2 people; that a 50-60 hour work week only causes frustration and burnout.

3. The C-level meets regularly with all employees at all salary grades to learn about their ideas.

4. The C-level expresses appreciation for a job well done without sending an e-mail.

5. The C-level meets regularly with customers to understand their needs.

6. Employees renew their dedication to the company mission.

7. Employees continue to streamline work methods and create new products/services. 

8. Employees commit to learning at least one new skill each year.

9. Employees treat their coworkers as they wish to be treated.

10. Employees stop gossiping about their coworkers.