|
|
Our Management Training
Courses
By introducing our
Management
Training courses to your staff we help ease the negative effect of change on both managerial and supervisory personnel. The change in job responsibilities, the change in personnel, job duties, and the rising challenge of developing subordinates are specific goals of our learning systems
courses. We are highly successful at helping Managers and Supervisors learn and adapt to the necessary skills and proper behaviors to be successful at work as well as in their personal lives.
For more information on our
management training courses please
contact us.
As a part of our management training courses, Managers and Supervisors
will learn how to:
- Minimize the chance of miscommunication by understanding what
people are really saying, and why
- Deal with difficult people, manage tense situations, and resolve
conflict
- Make use of proven active listening skills to improve your
ability to gain helpful information
- Be able to facilitate, guide, and close discussions in
one-on-one or group settings
- Improve understanding and communication by giving and receiving
good feedback
- Use ideas submitted by a member of the team without causing
other members to be defensive
- Develop a comprehensive team building strategy that improves
productivity of the whole team
- Emphasize the value of working toward common goals without
devaluing individual accomplishment
- Define and set up a method to track staff activities
- Be able to manage time and work assignments effectively
- Conduct team meetings that capture and hold the audience’s
attention
- Interview and hire the right person for the right job
- Save time and work more effectively through the use of a clear
time management plan
- Understand and comply with proper hiring and managing
requirements
- Communicate effectively with both superiors, peers and
subordinates
- Become effective coaches for their work team
- Conduct accurate and difficult performance appraisals
|
 |
Team Management Training Tips:
What's Good about Quiet Rule-Breaking
Q&A with: Michel J. Anteby
What do software engineers, flight attendants, factory workers, mail
carriers, truck drivers, and hospital nurses have in common?
According to HBS professor Michel Anteby, these professions—and many
others just as dissimilar, maybe even yours—inform a "moral gray
zone" that allows discreet but regular ways for staff and
supervisors to engage in officially forbidden yet tolerated
practices at work.
"Gray zones emerge when official company rules are repeatedly broken
with, at minimum, a supervisor's tacit or explicit approval," says
Anteby.
In the case of software engineers, the quiet rule-breaking could
mean developing code with team management approval for open-source
external company projects. For mail carriers, the moral gray zone
might mean finishing duties early yet staying "on the clock" until
the workday has officially ended. In both cases, managers are
usually aware of these activities yet turn a blind eye, says Anteby.
Why? Is that because such managers are nice people? Or does team
management see hidden yet important benefits in a company culture
that tacitly encourages—and nourishes—gray zones?
Anteby's recent book, Moral Gray Zones: Side Productions, Identity,
and Regulation in an Aeronautic Plant (Princeton University Press),
looks at how craftsmen establish and fulfill professional identity
while simultaneously skirting rules against the creation of personal
artifacts on company time and with company materials.
While such settings may become less common as manufacturing loses
influence, in the following email Q&A Anteby explains that moral
gray zones operate everywhere, at all levels of team management.
What's more, they will probably remain strong in the years to come.
"To date, I have not found a single person unable to articulate in
his or her work context a moral gray zone," says Anteby. What does
your office do to sustain one?
Martha Lagace: How prevalent are gray zones?
Michel Anteby: Very prevalent, but not all gray zones are
moral. Following sociologist Emile Durkheim's use of morality, moral
practices are defined as those deemed acceptable by a given society
or group. The moral labeling is therefore a collective process. A
worker and a supervisor cannot together deem a practice moral;
instead a larger collective needs to agree to the label.
Consider, for instance, an employee stealing repeatedly—with his
manager's approval—from the cash register. That practice is a gray
zone, but would hardly qualify as a moral one. By contrast, the same
employee setting aside a clothing item in a storage room to later
purchase for himself when the item will be deeply discounted is a
gray zone as well. In high-end department stores such practices are
often tolerated. This leniency when moderately exhibited is widely
seen as "good" practice, a small favor done to reward deserving
employees, and as such qualifies as a moral gray zone.
Quantifying moral gray zones is a difficult exercise. Identifying
them, first, requires in-depth knowledge of a given work setting.
Quantifying them, next, requires multiple managers and employees
answering questions that could get them fired if the company decided
to apply its rules to the letter.
This is why ethnographic approaches are best suited to document such
practices. Ethnographers spend extended periods of time in the field
and therefore see or are told by informants what others might miss.
At the same time, a limitation is that we cannot quantify what we
observe.
"To date, I have not found a single person unable to articulate in
his or her work context a moral gray zone."
However, to date I have not found a single person unable to
articulate in his or her work context a moral gray zone. Harvard
Business School students constantly share with me their stories of
moral gray zones and update me on current practices. Recently, for
instance, I was surprised to learn that a student who worked in the
U.S. pulp industry was asked by his co-workers to punch them out
later than they actually finished work. Team management apparently
was aware of this practice and allowed it: a prime example, I
suspect, of a moral gray zone.
Q: Using the example of paramedics, how do gray zones operate
and why are they significant?
A: Occupations, de facto, provide the shared, collective
level of understanding that allows moral gray zones to exist.
Nurses, paramedics, or flight attendants, for instance, share common
training, practices, and social identities that place them in a
readily available collective.
Paramedics are a telling example given the costly implications of
malpractice in the United States. Paramedics are supposed to bring
patients to attending physicians (most often in emergency rooms) and
are not supposed to perform many medical acts. Officially, attending
physicians are the ones performing the acts. Yet in some instances,
to save "crashing patients" (meaning patients who seem about to
die), paramedics will perform acts that they are not officially
allowed to perform. Not all paramedics, however, are given such
leeway—only the trusted ones. When physicians are aware of these
breaches, yet remain silent, we are in the midst of a moral gray
zone.
Two broader implications can be drawn from this example. First,
leniencies are part of the team management toolkit. They allow for
"local regulation": in other words, they allow work to be done.
Second, by allowing trusted paramedics to "save lives" even if this
means bending the rules a bit, physicians cater to the paramedics'
occupational identities. Paramedics become who they aspire to be,
namely "saviors." These paramedics are also more likely to cooperate
with the physicians in the future. Thus, moral gray zones enable
both managers and workers to perform their roles.
Q: Gray zones might be detrimental to organizational health,
even subversive. When employees do things behind the scenes, an
organization potentially loses revenue and material, as well as
less-tangible benefits. What is the balancing act needed to sustain
gray zones?
A: Using the above example of paramedics, what is gained and
lost? Obviously, some level of team management control is lost
because "control" now occurs at the field level between the
physician and the paramedic. In a way, top management loses power
over its employees. In gray zones involving material pursuits—such
as when a clothing item that could have been sold at a higher price
to a customer is kept hidden until it becomes deeply
discounted—direct losses can be calculated. At the same time,
managers gain the employees' engagement, and perhaps, more
importantly, managers get to decide who benefits from its
leniencies.
"Moral gray zones enable both managers and workers to perform their
roles."
While such freedom can lead to abuses, overall it tests the ability
of middle management to manage. A key assumption is that team
management exercises proper judgment in selectively exhibiting
leniencies. Moral gray zones therefore rely on trust, at all levels,
and might not be appropriate in all contexts. Strong occupational
communities often provide the needed guidelines to ensure proper use
of these leniencies. The abuse of leniencies is a problem; its
routine use, I would argue, is less so.
Q: You assert that managers are usually aware of gray zones.
How do managers benefit from gray zones to the degree that they
notice them and even perhaps cultivate them? Is there anything
managers can do to improve a "negative" gray zone?
A: A key test of the morality of a gray zone is the extent to
which it entails shared practices. But newly appointed team managers
often do not know if the practice is shared. So let's consider two
cases.
First case: The team management notices the practice is an anomaly
or is only confined to her team. An obvious next step is to do away
with it, explaining precisely why it should be discontinued.
Second case: The "morality" of the practice is confirmed. For
instance, all similar teams operate in the observed manner,
regardless of their team management or the geography. In that
case—and if the practice does not violate broader social norms—it is
then important for the manager to signal that she is "in the know."
This signals that the leniency is actively permitted, not a default
choice. Then defining the boundaries of the practice becomes
necessary: Setting one or two clothing items aside can be tolerated;
setting aside ten for resale should be sanctioned.
Q: How will gray zones evolve in the future?
A: The fact that contemporary organizations might rely on
more elaborate employee monitoring mechanisms could appear to
endanger the existence of moral gray zones. For instance, whereas
truck drivers in the past could pick up passengers en route, today a
video camera is often used to monitor the driver's seat. In some
instances a driver can lose his job if he picks up a passenger—a
practice that goes against company rules but that used to be often
tolerated.
However, two important reasons suggest that moral gray zones are
here to stay. First, moral gray zones involve tacit team management
approval. Thus, it is not because employees are more highly
monitored that gray zones will disappear; instead, employees are now
made more aware of their supervisor's tacit approval. In other
words, the give and take operating in gray zones is made more
explicit.
A second important reason to see the development of moral gray zones
is the high burden bestowed upon individuals these days to prove
themselves in their occupation. Imagine two software engineers with
similar technical training, both vying for recognition. One is
located in London and the other in Bangalore. Both likely do similar
work and may experience threats—distinct in intensity and nature—to
their occupational identity. For the one in London, an upcoming cost
reduction wave could eliminate her job. For the one in Bangalore,
the most rewarding work is probably done in London, and her earnings
are likely to be lower than those of her London counterparts.
With the arrival of new candidates from diverse backgrounds in
occupations operating across geographies, it seems reasonable to
expect the contest for recognition to intensify. Many moral gray
zones provide readily available intra- and inter-occupational
sorting mechanisms. In global labor markets, moral gray zones will
likely blossom.
Q: What are you working on next?
A: My research focuses mainly on questions of social
identities and morality. Moral Gray Zones was an attempt to explore
this interplay in the context of a community with strong
norms—craftsmen in a low-turnover factory setting. This led me to
want to explore similar issues in the absence of strong norms.
My current project focuses on potentially contested practice where
few norms seem to prevail. Whole-body donations for medical
education and research provide the setting for this project. The
goal is to understand how individuals and organizations operate in
this context. How (moral) norms emerge, and are enforced, are
questions at the core of my research.
Source: by Martha Lagace, Published: February 17, 2009
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6078.html
Subject: Team Management
More Management Training Tips
|
 |
|
Team Management Training Tips:
What's Good about Quiet Rule-Breaking
|
|