In my column last week, we asked, "Did you like my view this week?"
Half of the respondents answered "Very much," 14.3 said "Much," 21.4 percent answered "Some," 7.1 percent said "A little," and 7.1 percent replied "Not at all."
Here are some of the additional comments:
>The better you know your people, the easier it is to manage effectively.
>My experience is that a military background does not mean a good leader. Talk about autocratic management style! They order people around, take input from people who do understand technology as a threat to their authority and have the worst planning skills I've ever seen because they want everything now - no understanding of resource loading.
>I think it is easier to train a good manager in the technical aspects of their work than to train a good technician to be a good manager. Management can be taught but the person's approach and attitude towards people has more to do with their effectiveness.
>Also with 35 years in pulp and paper, the man on the machine often does not know anymore where the valve is. It's indeed some kind of video game instead of feeling, touching, listening to strange noises, vibrations and things like these. I love the new controls, but the risk it that the real feeling of the process is gone.
>It makes a great argument for encouraging/supporting technical staff to join military reserve units. (Like me ;))
>Not as sharp as most of your articles. Good managers have many skills - they need to understand all their resources to varying levels. They cannot optimise it all and rely on the team. Therefore the management of the team (and interaction with other teams) is the prime skill at mid to higher levels. Not too sure about the general ability of military to transfer to civilian management. Many of them are great; some look for obedience that is not prevalent in most outside organisations especially where there are unions. Keep up the good work
>People development seems to be a lost skill in most mills I visit. Young folks - almost never Veterans - get more responsibility added to them without knowing how to get the job demanded of them done. Almost certain failure. And often a departure of some fine brains to some other industry.
>Jim You are on track. Simple answer is a good manager can always get the needed help from available technicians in a very productive manner. Good technician - bad manager looses the good help available and ends up taking on the whole burden which becomes a downward spiral. The source of the technical or managerial training is not a critical factor - only how the person develops and applies that training is important. Moving people to a managerial position should be based on how they have demonstrated their managerial abilities to that point. Unfortunately to many promotions into those key slots are done by previous position rather than appropriate selection (assistant is automatic next in line ). Good managers have the respect and support of their troops and they will accomplish great things together. Great technicians may find great solutions but still need to get them applied. Of course the best situation is to have some one who is both! They are also your next mill and corporate managers in short order!
>I agree with 90% of this weeks column Jim. My experience with the military trained leaders in our industry has been far different from yours - in my experience, these men can be uber-egomaniacal dictators with harsh command and control mentalities that simply don't work with today's workforce.
You may take this week's quiz here.
|
