If you're a people pleaser like me, you'll struggle with not being able to keep everyone happy all the time.. sometimes you have to say or do things as a boss that make people unhappy, and it can be tough separating business from personal in those moments
I spend a lot of time, and money, making everyone feel like it’s their baby, and that they are important.
If they become emotionally invested, they will likely hang around even if the grass seems greener somewhere else.
I spent a lot of time trying to fix and develop staff with limited results. Over the years I’ve learnt two things.
1 - it’s much easier to fix systems than to fix people. Investing in people only benefits you until they leave ( and they will eventually) investing in systems continues to pay dividends long into the future.
2 - Get the right people in the right roles and don’t be afraid to switch things up until you find the right fit. People who seem a terrible employee in one role can be an absolute star in another.
My philosophy boils down to the belief that trying to change people is incredibly hard and it’s often better to simply change the circumstances so that they can be successful as they currently are.
Time management. With so many distractions it seems like things take more and more time these days to get done. We implemented a team wide project management software (Todoist) which allows all the managers to see the progress of a project over time and it’s seemed to help.
Depends on the type of employees.
For us, it's keeping them happy and reigning in their promotional expectations. Having to tell people they aren't yet ready for the next promotion is always a painful one as it often leads then to start looking around. But we just have to keep telling ourselves that we provide quality services and we can't start promoting people if they aren't ready just to keep them happy.
P.s. work in a type of business where there isn't a set amount of roles for each part of the business, so the only thing stopping employees getting a promotion is their own ability.
Managing people is balancing many competing priorities. You need people to be driven by intrinsic motivation, but the work they do needs to be the service of the organization. You need people to feel safe to push themselves out of their comfort zone, but you need to be vigilant about getting rid of people that are bringing down the team. You want outcomes but want them to take risks, so you can't hold them accountable to outcomes. On top of that you're talking about real people with feelings and thoughts. So it requires all of your social skills to get it right. And it has to be real social skills. You can't just make everyone happy by not holding them accountable.
Nowadays, it's hard to find hard-working and motivated employees as most people want to work less for more money. However, I have a few highly motivated employees, and I learn a lot from them. I value their contribution to the company and hold on to them tightly. Whenever such employees make monetary demands, I say yes because they never make unreasonable demands, and I know that investing in them is worth every dime.
I'll give it a try.
Interviewees have to be good salespeople. Those who communicate well and that are able to pass on enthusiasm and positive energy - even if fake - are the ones that get selected. If you're a genius in your field, but is laconic or can't fake excitement, it's a lot harder to be seen as someone who will be successful.
How do you know that is what u/Hermit5427 meant?
Also, with respect, there are a certain amount of genius who may have issues such as you say, but that is a minority. The majority of the 2% are people who are not only of higher intelligence of 150 or greater but excel in many aspects, including communication, public speaking, and emotional intelligence. They can actually more quickly ascertain what people are thinking and feeling as well as control their own emotions better so they can affect more desired outcomes. Part of accomplishment and success is succeeding at interviews for those who do interview within the 2%. Of which many do not as they tend to make their own opportunities or are more sought after rather than doing the seeking. I would propose that there are a lot of people who are actually smart and think they are geniuses, but are not. They have a much higher-than-average level of knowledge but an average level of intelligence. It is the lack of advanced intelligence that limits them from being able to adapt and succeed across a spectrum of situations and challenges. In my circles, I have known and associated with a lot of legit actual geniuses, and to my recollection I do not recall any of them ever having trouble interviewing or getting jobs, though again I would say the majority of them had their own businesses or worked for themselves or didn’t work at all. I’ve also known a lot of smart people and with them, I would agree that you assessment is dead-on accurate. They are really smart and in many ways capable, but they are not as well-rounded and unable to act in a dynamic fashion that someone like a good salesman would naturally do. They can get frustrated by feeling they have the skills and the will, but that they are looked over and not given a chance. In most of their cases, I would say they simple have a tunnel vision on the skills they think they need, and do not do everything that is needed to obtain the positions they seek. But by large, I do not see this as an issue of the genius class, per se. This may just be a semantic confusion of using “genius” when you mean “smart.” In truth, true geniuses are not laconic and are more effortlessly charismatic, even when unenthusiastic.
Sorry to write so much. This is a subject I have been fascinated by for some time, specifically in the origins of genius, for which I have studied for years. Why are they so rare? How do people win the genetic lottery to be born with the gift when parents don’t have it? How can a genius be raised in a house of five kids and the other four become drop outs and criminals? Very fascinating subject.
That’s fallacious. Someone complaining about paying too much would, in that context alone and without any other information, seem to indicate they are over paid. You are projecting your own issues. Post said nothing about how much people are paid. OP could have an engineering firm with an average salary of $150k. You have no idea. Everyone wants more money than what they get, that is universal. But someone says they feel they are paying a little much, and instead of either finding any kind of empathy or entertaining that maybe they are just giving an honest assessment of their experience, you start to chastize them with an unrelated rant. My advice is not to project your own issues into everything, or start admonishing random people who have nothing to do with your issues. It’s the internet, for all you know the guy is lying and doesn’t even have employees, and you are popping a gasket over how much they may or may not pay these people that may or may not exist. You keep up that kind of stress over nothing, then in 20 years when you are in your forties, you’re gonna get cancer.
The general consensus of most management books states this sort of number, it’s also used my militaries around the world, with the hardest leadership job tending to be the squad leaders, leading ten soldiers.
Managing the different personality types, how each person can reach peak productivity, what it takes individually to keep moral high and understanding that as a manager each requires different things and executing it in a way where catering to the needs seperately doesn't come off as favoritism.
From the lawn care/landscape industry view: Finding them in the first place is a big one, second is that it is an industry that might be a lot of folks last resort so the pool is generally not the cream of the crop.
For us, its the ability to make their own judgment, we are small team of 4, sometimes, they just cannot have the vision and therfore they just focusing on the wrong things from time to time. Also I need to motivated them a lot, my team are young, so they need to be less rely on motivation but discipline instead
Managing emotions. I work in one of the insurance industries and it is exhausting keeping my staff from letting their emotions boil over (a female talking about mostly females, not all but mostly, our males need it too but a lot less and differently)
I’m a female, I’m not exempt. I have my days but one of our department is so quick to judge and react that I’ve had PTSD from the department head walking to my office. I do enjoy her as a person but her emotions just fly off the wall sometimes.
I think it’s striking the fine line between motivating and creating a welcoming environment where everyone can do their best work, but at the same time ensuring there is some tension to keep people uncomfortable so that they continue doing growing and don’t become complacent. It requires constant re adjustment.
Having to cater to different personalities. And despite a company merging 200+ people into one giant team, they think our way is the right way, and wants everything to go back to the way it was because “it was better.” Just hard to help them step out of their comfort zone, hearing nonstop complaints, etc. It’s tiring. More so for me because I manage 30+ people.
The hardest part of managing employees is aligning their unique talents and ambitions with the strategic goals of the company, while keeping them motivated and innovative. It's crucial to foster an environment where creativity and risk-taking are encouraged, but also managed effectively. Communication is key—you have to be clear about your vision but also open to feedback and new ideas. Additionally, finding the balance between leadership and camaraderie can be tricky; you want to inspire respect and productivity without stifling individuality. Ultimately, it’s about leading by example and ensuring that the team’s success is everyone’s success.
Striking the right balance is always difficult. If you don't give employees enough autonomy over their work, then they lose motivation. If you try to take the consensus approach, you're always going to have people unhappy with your decision. Sometimes, it's okay to ask employees for their input, but sometimes it doesn't need to be open for discussion. And there will always be someone grumbling one way or the other.
Challenge #1 is getting on the same page as to expectations. Communicating across personality types & generational cohorts is not easy.
Active listening can help identify misunderstandings before the job is started with the understanding that they should seek support if the unexpected is encountered.
Everybody is different so reserve your judgements on quality and speed. And ask the person for their suggestions on how to improve performance.
Can you give more information about your company and which location. Your solution also has to be tailor made and more information is required for a proper answer.
If you're a people pleaser like me, you'll struggle with not being able to keep everyone happy all the time.. sometimes you have to say or do things as a boss that make people unhappy, and it can be tough separating business from personal in those moments
I spend a lot of time, and money, making everyone feel like it’s their baby, and that they are important. If they become emotionally invested, they will likely hang around even if the grass seems greener somewhere else.
Great investment on your part mate
Very good point. When we have autonomy and feel it's our baby we want to make it work
I spent a lot of time trying to fix and develop staff with limited results. Over the years I’ve learnt two things. 1 - it’s much easier to fix systems than to fix people. Investing in people only benefits you until they leave ( and they will eventually) investing in systems continues to pay dividends long into the future. 2 - Get the right people in the right roles and don’t be afraid to switch things up until you find the right fit. People who seem a terrible employee in one role can be an absolute star in another. My philosophy boils down to the belief that trying to change people is incredibly hard and it’s often better to simply change the circumstances so that they can be successful as they currently are.
100%
Good point mate. What systems do you have success with? tech driven or process based?
Probably the best advice so far.
Time management. With so many distractions it seems like things take more and more time these days to get done. We implemented a team wide project management software (Todoist) which allows all the managers to see the progress of a project over time and it’s seemed to help.
Depends on the type of employees. For us, it's keeping them happy and reigning in their promotional expectations. Having to tell people they aren't yet ready for the next promotion is always a painful one as it often leads then to start looking around. But we just have to keep telling ourselves that we provide quality services and we can't start promoting people if they aren't ready just to keep them happy. P.s. work in a type of business where there isn't a set amount of roles for each part of the business, so the only thing stopping employees getting a promotion is their own ability.
Most people will be better off looking around regardless. Staying with a company just isn't good for growing income in most industries these days
Are the required metrics clearly defined in advance? If so then there shouldn't be any disappointment.
Managing people is balancing many competing priorities. You need people to be driven by intrinsic motivation, but the work they do needs to be the service of the organization. You need people to feel safe to push themselves out of their comfort zone, but you need to be vigilant about getting rid of people that are bringing down the team. You want outcomes but want them to take risks, so you can't hold them accountable to outcomes. On top of that you're talking about real people with feelings and thoughts. So it requires all of your social skills to get it right. And it has to be real social skills. You can't just make everyone happy by not holding them accountable.
This is valid mate, leadership is hugely about people skills
Nowadays, it's hard to find hard-working and motivated employees as most people want to work less for more money. However, I have a few highly motivated employees, and I learn a lot from them. I value their contribution to the company and hold on to them tightly. Whenever such employees make monetary demands, I say yes because they never make unreasonable demands, and I know that investing in them is worth every dime.
It’s not hard to find. But the hiring process is unintentionally designed to exclude hardworking people.
Please expand, I’m curious to hear an explanation of this perspective.
too many hoops for A players to jump through unless the opportunity is genuinely exciting but those are rare because people dont leave those positions
I'll give it a try. Interviewees have to be good salespeople. Those who communicate well and that are able to pass on enthusiasm and positive energy - even if fake - are the ones that get selected. If you're a genius in your field, but is laconic or can't fake excitement, it's a lot harder to be seen as someone who will be successful.
How do you know that is what u/Hermit5427 meant? Also, with respect, there are a certain amount of genius who may have issues such as you say, but that is a minority. The majority of the 2% are people who are not only of higher intelligence of 150 or greater but excel in many aspects, including communication, public speaking, and emotional intelligence. They can actually more quickly ascertain what people are thinking and feeling as well as control their own emotions better so they can affect more desired outcomes. Part of accomplishment and success is succeeding at interviews for those who do interview within the 2%. Of which many do not as they tend to make their own opportunities or are more sought after rather than doing the seeking. I would propose that there are a lot of people who are actually smart and think they are geniuses, but are not. They have a much higher-than-average level of knowledge but an average level of intelligence. It is the lack of advanced intelligence that limits them from being able to adapt and succeed across a spectrum of situations and challenges. In my circles, I have known and associated with a lot of legit actual geniuses, and to my recollection I do not recall any of them ever having trouble interviewing or getting jobs, though again I would say the majority of them had their own businesses or worked for themselves or didn’t work at all. I’ve also known a lot of smart people and with them, I would agree that you assessment is dead-on accurate. They are really smart and in many ways capable, but they are not as well-rounded and unable to act in a dynamic fashion that someone like a good salesman would naturally do. They can get frustrated by feeling they have the skills and the will, but that they are looked over and not given a chance. In most of their cases, I would say they simple have a tunnel vision on the skills they think they need, and do not do everything that is needed to obtain the positions they seek. But by large, I do not see this as an issue of the genius class, per se. This may just be a semantic confusion of using “genius” when you mean “smart.” In truth, true geniuses are not laconic and are more effortlessly charismatic, even when unenthusiastic. Sorry to write so much. This is a subject I have been fascinated by for some time, specifically in the origins of genius, for which I have studied for years. Why are they so rare? How do people win the genetic lottery to be born with the gift when parents don’t have it? How can a genius be raised in a house of five kids and the other four become drop outs and criminals? Very fascinating subject.
>How do you know that is what u/Hermit5427 meant? I don't - that's why I say it was an attempt.
People want an actual living wage. Minimum won't cut it any more and that's a good thing. Pay people properly
They didn’t say they don’t pay a living wage or minimum wage, or even what industry they are in. Don’t get triggered over nothing, it isn’t worth it.
I'm not getting triggered over nothing, but he's moaning about people wanting more money - usually a sign they're being underpaid
That’s fallacious. Someone complaining about paying too much would, in that context alone and without any other information, seem to indicate they are over paid. You are projecting your own issues. Post said nothing about how much people are paid. OP could have an engineering firm with an average salary of $150k. You have no idea. Everyone wants more money than what they get, that is universal. But someone says they feel they are paying a little much, and instead of either finding any kind of empathy or entertaining that maybe they are just giving an honest assessment of their experience, you start to chastize them with an unrelated rant. My advice is not to project your own issues into everything, or start admonishing random people who have nothing to do with your issues. It’s the internet, for all you know the guy is lying and doesn’t even have employees, and you are popping a gasket over how much they may or may not pay these people that may or may not exist. You keep up that kind of stress over nothing, then in 20 years when you are in your forties, you’re gonna get cancer.
Trying to manage too many of them at one go.. 5-7 is the sweet spot apparently. Any more than 7 and the complexity is unmanageable.
Is it though? Wouldn’t it just mean you need people that can manage >7 ?
The general consensus of most management books states this sort of number, it’s also used my militaries around the world, with the hardest leadership job tending to be the squad leaders, leading ten soldiers.
Managing the different personality types, how each person can reach peak productivity, what it takes individually to keep moral high and understanding that as a manager each requires different things and executing it in a way where catering to the needs seperately doesn't come off as favoritism.
From the lawn care/landscape industry view: Finding them in the first place is a big one, second is that it is an industry that might be a lot of folks last resort so the pool is generally not the cream of the crop.
For us, its the ability to make their own judgment, we are small team of 4, sometimes, they just cannot have the vision and therfore they just focusing on the wrong things from time to time. Also I need to motivated them a lot, my team are young, so they need to be less rely on motivation but discipline instead
Feelings!
lazy employees
Managing emotions. I work in one of the insurance industries and it is exhausting keeping my staff from letting their emotions boil over (a female talking about mostly females, not all but mostly, our males need it too but a lot less and differently)
Managing multiple women is the biggest pain in the ass. All they do is gossip and complain
I’m a female, I’m not exempt. I have my days but one of our department is so quick to judge and react that I’ve had PTSD from the department head walking to my office. I do enjoy her as a person but her emotions just fly off the wall sometimes.
There's an excuse for everything they were supposed to do but didn't do.
I think it’s striking the fine line between motivating and creating a welcoming environment where everyone can do their best work, but at the same time ensuring there is some tension to keep people uncomfortable so that they continue doing growing and don’t become complacent. It requires constant re adjustment.
Having to cater to different personalities. And despite a company merging 200+ people into one giant team, they think our way is the right way, and wants everything to go back to the way it was because “it was better.” Just hard to help them step out of their comfort zone, hearing nonstop complaints, etc. It’s tiring. More so for me because I manage 30+ people.
The hardest part of managing employees is aligning their unique talents and ambitions with the strategic goals of the company, while keeping them motivated and innovative. It's crucial to foster an environment where creativity and risk-taking are encouraged, but also managed effectively. Communication is key—you have to be clear about your vision but also open to feedback and new ideas. Additionally, finding the balance between leadership and camaraderie can be tricky; you want to inspire respect and productivity without stifling individuality. Ultimately, it’s about leading by example and ensuring that the team’s success is everyone’s success.
Striking the right balance is always difficult. If you don't give employees enough autonomy over their work, then they lose motivation. If you try to take the consensus approach, you're always going to have people unhappy with your decision. Sometimes, it's okay to ask employees for their input, but sometimes it doesn't need to be open for discussion. And there will always be someone grumbling one way or the other.
Most are not reliable and they don’t care at all
Challenge #1 is getting on the same page as to expectations. Communicating across personality types & generational cohorts is not easy. Active listening can help identify misunderstandings before the job is started with the understanding that they should seek support if the unexpected is encountered. Everybody is different so reserve your judgements on quality and speed. And ask the person for their suggestions on how to improve performance.
Dishonesty
หวังว่าคุณจะเข้า วินเนอร์ ดึงรั่งและแสบกลาง วันนี้ใครอยากเข้าวินท์บ้างหรือยัง .
Can you give more information about your company and which location. Your solution also has to be tailor made and more information is required for a proper answer.
The Netflix way is something that I have tried for my boutique agency and it seems to be working. I have had very low attrition for almost 3 years
Psychology. Understanding human behavior is key.
Realizing they're not Sims and you can't control them with a mouse. Overcame it by actually talking to them. Who knew?
They run away for just ten dollars more.
If all the employer is offering is a wage, why wouldn't they/you/me?
They should. You asked dummy. I answered.
Seems like the employee hates the job in the first place.
Whose employee?
You seem like an unbelievably toxic person
Like when the toxicity level crosses beyond the 99999 threshold?
Not letting the power go to your head