So, yes, I've read about Google's attempt to identify what makes a good manager. You, too, can read it in The New York Times, here. So it must be so! Just to steer you right, the article is entitled ,"Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss."
And yet, just tonight I did a search for "evil managers" (don't ask) and I got a link to a Forbes story entitled "Google's Failed Quest To Prove Managers Are Evil - And Why You Should Care" which can be found here.
When I clicked through to the story, with what am I greeted? Some sort of introductory page with:
Forbes Thought of the Day
"Work is love made visible."
Kahlil Gibran
Which, when I clicked through, led me to a swamp of weak thinking on management and leadership. For shame - don't sell me on how "work is love" (which should also imply that "love is work") and then push me through to the article I read.
The article's approach is asinine: so, engineers, who thrive on systems and systems building, shrink in horror from
managers...those people in organizations who are responsible for, uh, systems and systems building?
Google's experiment with trying to identify "good" managers is valid, for two simple reasons: First, all managers need to be leaders, as all leaders need to incorporate "managing" in what they do. And Second, All Leadership is Contextual. Situational. So what Google was trying to do was identify what their employees considered to be good management for what they needed to accomplish.
Accomplish - produce, create, achieve.
Listen up, everyone: Don't fall for the casually evil perspective that "leadership" is simply part of sound "management" - management categorizes and controls for the sake of categorization and control, that's what
it's there for. Leadership is rising above this to at least try our damnedest to see that our colleagues can produce, create, and achieve.
For a tonic to all this, read through this conversation.
But for now...I'm pooped! Buona notte a tutti, belli e bruti....
And yet, just tonight I did a search for "evil managers" (don't ask) and I got a link to a Forbes story entitled "Google's Failed Quest To Prove Managers Are Evil - And Why You Should Care" which can be found here.
When I clicked through to the story, with what am I greeted? Some sort of introductory page with:
Forbes Thought of the Day
"Work is love made visible."
Kahlil Gibran
Which, when I clicked through, led me to a swamp of weak thinking on management and leadership. For shame - don't sell me on how "work is love" (which should also imply that "love is work") and then push me through to the article I read.
The article's approach is asinine: so, engineers, who thrive on systems and systems building, shrink in horror from
managers...those people in organizations who are responsible for, uh, systems and systems building?
Google's experiment with trying to identify "good" managers is valid, for two simple reasons: First, all managers need to be leaders, as all leaders need to incorporate "managing" in what they do. And Second, All Leadership is Contextual. Situational. So what Google was trying to do was identify what their employees considered to be good management for what they needed to accomplish.
Accomplish - produce, create, achieve.
Listen up, everyone: Don't fall for the casually evil perspective that "leadership" is simply part of sound "management" - management categorizes and controls for the sake of categorization and control, that's what
it's there for. Leadership is rising above this to at least try our damnedest to see that our colleagues can produce, create, and achieve.
For a tonic to all this, read through this conversation.
But for now...I'm pooped! Buona notte a tutti, belli e bruti....
RSS Feed