Posted on 06/04/2019 11:53:50 AM PDT by John Conlin
n my MBA program, I was fortunate to have a practicing psychologist teach a course on management.
He used a variety of teaching methods, but one in particular involved discussing and debating case studies. The case studies would present this or that management challenge and we would each present and discuss our solution.
When we first started, we were surprised at how easy it was to solve these supposed management dilemmas. We’d confidently explain how we would address these issues and most of the class would agree. “I’ll just make them do this or that.” “I’ll just make them get along and work together.” Often our “solutions” involved the word “make” or one of its many derivatives.
Whatever action, we would just make our employees do it. Compulsion sounded so straightforward and easy. That way of thinking didn’t last long. The professor would constantly ask, “And how will you make them do that?” A simple sounding question, with profound implications. Think about the question. How will you make them do that?
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Ultimately, “I’ll make them do it” devolves to physical coercion. Slavery and totalitarianism are the end states of “I’ll make them do it.
Very difficult to ‘make’ anyone do anything. There have to be consequences, both good and bad, to every action. Some are internal, others external.
So what stopped you from posting your own material in full?
Learn to do it, then teach others how to do it. its not coercion, its education, real hands-on learning. Leaders inspire because of their confidence and control.
:: Ultimately, “I’ll make them do it” devolves to physical coercion. ::
Or, a $25 Pizza Hut gift card?
Our manufacturing facility in the Philippines would hire entire extended families to work there. If any one screwed up the entire family would be fired. Nobody screwed up.
Mass murder, too.
I remember an article long ago, in National Review. The author had worked in government, and described a conversation he/she had had with another government worker.
The subject of the conversation was public policy and how people could be coerced into doing something that the author’s interlocutor felt would be a public good.
The author had said “yes, but I’m not comfortable with the idea of forcing things down people’s throats.”
And the other person, a long-term bureaucrat, said “if you don’t like forcing things down people’s throats, you really don’t belong in the government.”
It’s not productive to ‘make’ anybody do anything.
You create an environment where it is possible for them to do something, then you make it in their best interests to do it. Then, if they don’t, you fire their ass.
Ultimately if you are leading an enterprise, it is necessary to communicate to your team what the goals are and the absolute expectation that each member of the team understands the goal, that he or she knows their duty and uses their skill and whatever time necessary to perform those duties and achieve that goal. they must also be made to understand that they will be accountable for poor performance. Leadership is not only expertise but the ability to communicate.
When it comes to politics there is no effective common leadership because there are no common goals or values. Not only is AOC stupid but her values are evil and warped. If she were an officer in the military would you follow her or feel confident in her judgment? There can only be effective leadership when there are common values and goals.
This is really a key problem in management.
Granted, in some situations, people may be pretty replaceable. If the cashier at Burger King just refuses to perform a task, you can fire them and get another cashier. As the article states “I’ll Just Fire Them” is the go-to solution for some folks.
But that is not applicable in so many cases. If you have a basically competent employee who simply refuses to send in status reports, how do you make them send in status reports? Are you going to fire them over that? How replaceable is this employee? Probably not that replaceable.
Managing people through fear doesn’t work.
Getting people to do things they don’t want to do is tricky.
It’s hard in business.
It’s harder in politics.
Which is why a lot of politicians would like to manage people through violence. It makes things easier.
And that’s basically why we have the Second Amendment. Because the Founders understood that your overlord is likely to try and govern through violence if they think they can get away with it.
Well done. Tyranny, plain and simple, and at the end of a gun. Well said.
Maybe this John Conlin is a different person from the ‘other’ John Conlin and maybe they’re bitter enemies and the ‘other’ John Conlin refused to allow FReeper John Conlin to post the entire article because of their history of enmity and hostility.
Maybe.
Same way parents make their kids do something.
Incentive-Eat supper so you can have ice cream.
Penalty -Eat supper or go to time out
Choice- You can eat supper with milk or juice.
And when all else fails: Because I said so.
“I’ll just make them do this or that.”
Spoken like a true dictator. Reminds me of a scene in “X” THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES.
“They better do what I say, or I’d hurt them!”
That's one factor.
Another is that history shows — even recent history — that otherwise fairly normal people will do almost anything to keep a cushy job they know they can't get on their merits in the open market, including leaving innocent people to rot for years in prison, letting people die by inaction, or even murdering people.
There are numerous crime videos on YT about people who murdered wives, husbands, and children for an insurance payout in the low- to mid-six-figure range.
Christopher Watts murdered his wife and two little girls last August (2018) for no reason other than he had the hots for a younger model who was willing to have lots of sex with him.
Someone with that sort of morality in a high government position can really do a lot of damage. And there are a great many people who operate at that level. I don't think it's a majority, but it's a substantial minority.
You are truly lucky if you get to work for a “good psychopath” boss. There is a psychopathia spectrum, and only those on the far extreme are potentially dangerous.
But a good psychopath boss is great to work for. Zero stress. No personal problems or issues. Worker morale is sky high, and everyone thinks they are the best boss they have ever worked for. Everyone knows where they stand.
So, importantly, they make *great* role models for supervisors and managers. Do what they do, and the way they do it, and you will probably be an effective boss.
The government does this all the time. How do you make people stop smoking?
Well, you tax or fine the certain action so much that eventually the people decide it isn’t worth partaking in a particular activity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.