How to Improve Team Members?

Training is the process of encouraging the desired behaviour.

Well stated and I am a firm believer.

The most important thing for any manager - their people need to be successful.

If your people are successful then you are automatically successful.

As should be expected. GA from me.

The other option enhances the gene pool but puts you in jail

Manager should be serious. I like the way you thinking kramarat:

From your saying, I find that there would be two ways of management. First one is about the "hard" management which you are mentioning. By this kind of management, your team would be as an army camp... and there would be no place for "..." people to grow up since your team will kick them out.

For my thinking, the "soft management", I mean that, all of us, want staffs to work well and work hard. But we can hardly judge during the interview so there are still some people passes. After time, you understand them that they "don't want to work". Do you want to know the reason why they do that? Then, by knowing the reason, you will improve them then. Yes, it could take time but do you think it is worth for us to do?

I have known some managers who were my direct bosses, from UK, from Japan...I don't know the reason why they have spent so much time on people (me is an example) whom they will just manage for 6 months or 12 months. I mean, they give me room to grow not just like US style which they just want people who may do the work (??? ).

The best bosses do little bossing, they are simply part of the team who's job happens to be payroll, scheduling, material acquisition, and whatever else is necessary to get the job done. I only became, "the boss", if someone forced me into it. It was a role I didn't relish, considering we were all grown ups.

As far as someone not wanting to work..............who cares what the reason is, they're gone.

The person that is put in charge of a project is there because he/she is more knowledgeable about the task than the people under them, and should be able to convey that knowledge to the others in a confident, non-threatening manner, in order to complete the task at hand in the most cost effective, efficient manner possible.

Considering that some aspects of our jobs were also dangerous, I would not risk the lives of any of my crew on high rigging, etc. without me being the first to try it out..........................I was also about the biggest, heaviest guy on the job. This gained me not only the respect of my crew, but they felt confident using the rigs and were able to work efficiently.

One more thing....................a boss that is lost, will never be able to motivate the people under him/her to perform to their full potential.

[a paid half day on Fridays, not docking their pay for doctors appointments, family emergencies,]

This is not possible in places where you work on government contracts. The gov audits every penny spent. I fyou want to do this, it will have to come out of the bosses pocket.

Empowerment can sometimes be a mistake, but making them feel like part of the team can work. People will generally work harder knowing they have a stake in the success of the Company. They can also work harder knowing that the Company's success can lead to rewards down the road.

People will also feel resentful if they are micromanaged, especially those who have "been around" for a while.

Communication is also important and is part of the team aspect I mentioned earlier. Often, the "us" [staff] versus "them" [management] mentality can be corrected by quarterly reports to the staff.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who feel they are entitled to that high paying job right out of college. You can blame their parents for that. Most of us have earned our stripes, these youngsters need to do the same.

I detest the term empowerment - had to listen to it all too much for many years.

People need to have the authority to do their job - that is common sense.

You are correct - money comes with time and capability. Some get it earlier but most don't.

I'd get rid of people who are incapable of doing their own work, but impose on others to perform elementary research that they should have already known when they took their current position.

You are a perfect example of this type of person.

Here's an example from nature:

Cowbirds - Stanford University

lyn:

Is that what tou are saying about me based on your own feeling? You have never met me and I am not manager.

Why I am asking so many questions? Not only doign my job, I log in here to discuss more about what I am doing with the sole purpose is to make it better day be day.

You know, I have known that being a perfect manager, he should not judge person based on feeling.

No offense but you go to the well (CR4) too often. Any resource can be over used. There's an Aesop's Fable about a boy who called wolf. You absolutely remind me of that fable. I'm not attacking you but I'm trying to open your eyes. Flooding CR4 almost daily with your thoughts isn't the prime objective of this forum. Unless I'm not looking at this right it seems once you've been given a professional task to perform your first action is to fire up CR4 and ask others to do your work and research for you. You've successfully burned me out. When I see your questions now I just usually pass on them without reading them (I don't think I'm alone on this).

I hope you reflect on constructive criticism and adjust your flooding habits, you'll get more positive results.

Good luck.

Industrial workers have been covered by Factory Act Rules and Regulation. If any worker is regularly making mistakes then he is careless worker. He is served written warning about his careless working. After three warnings he is suspended and enquiry is conducted by H.R Dept and he is given chance to give his reasons for such behaviour. If he is found guilty then he is dismissed from the organisation.

Take the offenders aside and explain what improvement in their performance is necessary. Select the worst offender and (in front of the other offenders) explain that he or she has a specific period of time to start demonstrating the desired performance. Suggest they put themselves in the place of the person who will have to use their work next. Ask them how they would like to have late, sloppy work pushed down on them to have to improve upon before it could be finished. Make it clear that this desired improvment is the minimum you will accept. If the performance doesn't improve in the specified time, dismiss that person, and make sure the other offenders know all about it. Then assemble the remaining offenders again, select the worst of the remaining group and give them a specific time period to make the specified improvments. You probably won't have to dismiss a second person. While it is difficult to dismiss a team member, if you can salvage the performance of the others by dismissing one, you will have done the other poor performers a favor.

Well, not so much bullying or berating as laying down the law: I need this level of performance and you are not delivering. I'm giving you a chance to deliver. If you can't deliver, I have to let you go and find someone else who can. The rest of you can learn from this guy's situation, or you can fail to learn.

Seriously, I'm all for positive reinforcement as a behavior modifier, I assume that's already been tried in this situation and failed, but if some of the team isn't delivering what's needed, they have to either step up, or get out of the way. It ain't always pretty out there in the big, bad competitive business world.

If the other low performers stampede, well, I'd have to take that as an admission that they looked at their skill set and work ethic, and decided that they don't belong on this team, or they just don't like working for a demanding boss. You have to respect that. Probably there are other jobs these folks can do very well, and, naturally, an effort should be made to find some other position for them, but if they can't do THIS job, it's no kindness to keep them on.

what you have described is disrespectful

public humiliation is a sign of weakness & desperation

I've worked for this kind of manager in the past & there came a juncture where I could cover him or let him swing

which do you think most of us will choose?

announce what going to happen in public, make the expectations clear

behind closed doors no holds barred, word gets out or even better speculation...

GA & agreed - that sucker would be toast as far as I am concerned!

To support or suggest public humiliation as a solution is a sign that the manager is the wrong business and position.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and there are many ways to accomplish everything. But having said that... what you have described might be some of the worst advice I have ever heard! For so many reasons, I won't even begin to list them.

Just out of curiousity... what country are you writing from, dbaer52? I'm getting a visual of a Chinese child-labor sweat shop, down in some basement somewhere in central Asia. Perhaps even someone walking the aisles wth a whip might be involved...

You said "If the other low performers stampede, well, I'd have to take that as an admission that they looked at their skill set and work ethic, and decided that they don't belong on this team, or they just don't like working for a demanding boss."

Who said anything about low performers stampeding? Excellent performers quit their jobs all the time because of the way they, or others around them, are treated. Poor treatment of staff can be an indication of Company Culture. Who would want to work under that shadow?

The good always go first.

I call that voting with their feet.

Did that a couple of times myself and came out the better for it.

Who said anything about stampeding? That was you, old chum: " but the others might just stampede outta there." from your post of 5/18 at about 9 o'clock. It's still up there if you want to check.

Have you ever managed anything?

Yup! Managed to get some good results under trying circumstances. I even have a fairly long list of good folks that are willing to work with me again. Apparently, the area I work in is somewhat rougher than average. We still use normal motiviation techniques on normal problems, but when things get down to the wire, and resources get tight, the last ditch techniques come out. They are rough, but they work.

Digging ditches is tough - no doubt.

Why not walk us the progression

instead starting off with the nuclear options

OP is far from up against it, his organization is growing

Yup, you got me.

I'll be sure to be more careful with my sentence structure from now on. Clarification: "...other STAFF might just stampede outta there." Meaning good ones could be lost too.

Cheers!

Very pragmatic!

What you have written here could be used in the resume of someone who wants to take over an Ice Hockey team. I could have mentioned any other competitive, high paying contact sport but thought that the connotation of slippery surface would suit your human resources tactics better.

Besides, what you are suggesting is only asked for if membership in a Seals storm trooper unit is asked for. What I am seeing in the real world is that in most cases the right people are in the right positions but only the chair they sit on warrants them being there at all.

I have had recent interviews were the evaluating person was in no position to even consider himself educated enough to make the right decision. I have no idea how these people could be were they are but that's were someone had put him, just the way the inertness of the system shows itself.

It ain't always pretty out there in the big, bad competitive business world.

The ugliness of the business world is what scares a lot of highly talented people away. I many cases these people are very highly strung and need other impulses than stand over tactics which, at least to me, would be like a waste of heat and then a bit. Leadership tactics like the ones you suggest are not the answer to unsuccessful teams.

Well, it really depends on when you want to go in and with who and at what price and then the choice of weapons (Legal department). Normal mills grind too slowly to even make me break out in a sweat. That's the way the cookie crumbles, very slowly and leaving part of the meal on the floor.

Back in the early seventies, in Germoney, there were strike breakers. No, not what you think, much more subtle it was. People were hired and their function was to be the scape goat, the ones that got sacked including screaming matches and all and sundry. They were sacked just to prove to the others that it was possible to be sacked.

For them it was just another job, next company please. Great acting sometimes and management had its way for good or for worse, only they knew.

Would I like to be on your team? YES

Would you like me on your team?

Ky.

My initial error was assuming that the first poster was far behind the curve and in an emergency situation. I have since been informed that he has both time and resources to do "non-emergency" type training, motivation, mentoring, etc.. In that case, one might wonder why he didn't simply call his HR department and avail himself of the (apparently) vast storehouse of superior techniques as described by numerous posters who found my suggestion so appalling that I've been asked "what sort of third world country are you from?" and "Have you ever managed anything?" (the answers are "Detroit" and "Yes", respectively)

In other words, under the circumstances, my "last ditch" type advice was not called for. I've use such tactics under circumstances where time, resources, cooperative attitudes, and talent were in very short supply. If you are not in such circumstances, then yes, my suggestion is the wrong one.

Oddly enough, this technique would not have to be applied in a "Seal Team Commando" type setting. I did, in fact, start out learning leadership in an elite military unit. The potential staff available in the military renders the problem moot.

How rough does it have to be to justify my last ditch approach? The 21 week lead time is now 15 weeks (because no one cared enough to get started), five tools need to be designed and built from scratch along with the production line, the design has changed 4 times, the budget has been cut twice, there's concertina razor wire woven through the chain link fence around the building, the majority of the crew and managment have prior felony convictions and all the shop foremen and managers openly wear firearms at all times to defend the building from the locals. Most of the staff were unmotivated and under trained. Not only did we get it done, we also cleaned up the badly broken PM system in the plant.

The OP Hien asks questions over a range of topics

my impression is he observes different situations, relates them here

Hien may not be directly involved in many of the situations & consequently can't always access the companies resources [assuming there are any] or insert himself in the middle...

the methods you describe make more sense with the context of the situation you describe.

The best method will depend on the conditions on the ground

I once agreed to let a manager make an example of me at a meeting. I knew it was coming, but not the subject.

The guy just raked me over lock out. Which I deserved. the crew got the message that it was a new day & there would be no exceptions.

the manager & I had a good laugh in private later

it increased the trust between us

I suggest you purchase two books and read them cover to cover, twice. Then rethink your question. First read "The Art of War" by Sun Tuz. Second read "Why People Don't Do What They Are Supposed to Do, and what you can do about it" by Ferdinand Fernois. Both book are available on Amazon.

As Sun Tuz stated when a general he was advising needed to know how to change the behavior of the emperor he sad, "First, change yourself." Dr. Fernois gives 16 reasons why people don't do what they are supposed to do and goes on to tell one what practical steps can be taken to correct the behavior.

After over 40 years experience, over half as a manager, I can tel you that both books are worth the time and effort to read and understand them.

Good luck

Over my long career, the thing I have noticed the most about organizations, no matter the aim of the organization, both successful organizations and not is that...

The ones that I consider to understand the core dynamics of "team work" is that they managed to find a way to include everyone in the march to achieving the aim of the organization no matter how small each individual's contribution to that aim.

Get across to those in charge that to succeed, each member of the work force is to be "valued" for what they bring to the success of the organization and as more then just a cost to drive out of the business model.

Each member of the work force needs to be given the opportunity to make a real contribution. It is often times quite interesting to see the change in some "team members" when they do finally realize that their efforts do in fact make a difference.

As to the organizations that do not succeed, it is often true that there is a "us vs them" attitude that exists at many levels in the environment. Such attitudes have no place of value in any organization that espouses to include "team work" in their work place culture.

Give people a chance to rise... you will be surprised how often they grab the chance and make the best of it.

Read the "Dilbert" comics. Truth is tastier with the sugar of humour.

Pairing and/or mentoring comes to mind. Put them together with the leaders on your crew. Hopefully, the strong ones will be slowed down minimally by this. If that doesn't improve performance, give them the crappiest low-priority assignments, or replace them.

Saw a good one today -

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/farcus;_ylt=Agze8idvmUdZ251z5tob0fwn35Z4;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNGZjMGRlBHBvcwM0MQRzZWMDeW5fYWxwaGFfbGlzdARzbGsDZmFyY3Vz

If you can't mentor or educate them to do their job then get them a job somewhere else. if that can't be done then fire them. first you should give them a chance to be mentored by someone who knows how to do the job and has good training skills. Not everyone can do every job. they may just be a mismatch for the job.

It is my experience that many bad workers are just poorly trained and have no self confidence that they can do the job.

There are alot of good comments in this tread. The successes I have had used the following ideas... some of which have already been mentioned.

1) The success of a supervisor is built on the success of his/her team.

2) Trust your workers, but also hold them both accountable and responsible for their work. This means if they do well, they reap the rewards, and visa versa. Someone mentioned it above, but little things go a long way in this regard. The paid half-days on Fridays is one that works well.

3) Manage the job/project/task. Lead the people. This means set your workers up to succeed by providing the right tools, training, and time. Communicate expectations and goals. There aren't many people out there who don't want to have a sense of accomplishment and worth. Set them up for it.

4) It almost goes under #3, but in leading, treat your workers as both an individual and as part of a team. My teams members always understood there was a level of personal responsibility as well as a level to the whole team. Successful performance was not just doing what was expected of them, if one person on the team failed, they all did. This builds a cooperative environment where one person who might be trailing behind in work/production is trained/motivated/helped by the rest of the team.

5) Cross-train or switch positions within the team until everyone can effectively do any job. This is often tough and often fought. It slows productivity during the training, and depending on how many different skill sets you have to build, but in the end you have a very versatile, tight knit team. It is amazing to watch the egos drop from even the most seasoned people when they have to learn a new area of expertise, they learn from each other and build a tighter team.

6) As a supervisor, understand you are human, you don't have all the answers and you make errors. If you don't know, don't be afraid to admit it and look to your team for help. It is far worse to force your team to do something they know won't work or will need to be re-done. It's better to let them know you trust them than to appear ignorant and willing to act on that ignorance.

GA - agree with all except for no 5 - that is really difficult in a team of any size that has different disciplines/skill sets.

It is often difficult, sometimes impossible depending on the level of training required for each position. For example, it would be completely unwise to rotate all the positions in a surgical team for obvious reasons. With the exception of jobs that require years of extensive training or licensing, I think the philosophy works great.

I successfully employed this on a team of 12 people in an industrial environment. Training for each position required roughly 4-6 weeks. So yes, it takes time. Some people would say its impractical. But I ended up with an extremely versatile group of people who were happy and more productive because they enjoyed the ability to switch jobs when things were getting monotonous in their position. Note, they had the flexibility to switch positions anytime as long as they gave me a heads up as to who was doing what.

Cross-training, IMO, not just gives the above benefits, but prevents someone from becoming "indispensable" because no one else knows how to do their job.

There are all kinds of hidden benefits too. For one, the longer someone does the same job, the more likely it is they get complacent (which leads to higher injury or death rates). A fresh set of eyes looking at a job could find a problem that might have been overlooked or find a way to improve a process. A fresh set of eyes who knows how things should work will question things. They'll bring up small issues when something is wrong (as opposed to applying some quick fix to a problem that leads to major issues in the future). And of course, as I mentioned above, it builds more of a team because they're all learning from and relying on each other.

As you say, it is difficult and the upfront cost is real. But as a general rule, I believe it more than pays for itself in both worker productivity and less unscheduled equipment downtime.

I am more accustomed to implementing the team concept where mechanical, electrical, chemical, electronics engineers and other disciplines were all involved in plant design or operations. The group size varied from 100 to 1000.

Cross training with those groups would have led to a rather low common denominator - defeating the purpose.

Nucor is big on cross training for the melt shop floor people and it works but that is at the technician level. Even then it will not work where instrumentation comes in except for simple problems. Playing around with HT power gets tricky.

My example was mixing up mechanical, electrical, instrumentation techs and operations. And in comparison to the groups you refer to, mine was quite small. So perhaps things would be different (drastically?) on a large scale. And yes, it is almost obvious that it does lead to a lower common denominator... to begin with (and hence the resistance to implement it). I wouldn't be surprised if a business as large as Nucor hasn't actually run some sort of calc to decide where it's best to draw the cross training line. From my experience so far, the "gurus", who know "everything", who can troubleshoot anything, who can fix anything, and who the workers look up to are the guys who have worked in every area. I think for most tech/operator level situations it is possible to create a whole team of gurus.

You're right about cross-training engineers, at least to some degree. I've been a part of some lively discussions on this exact topic. What it always seemed to boil down to is it more desirable to have highly specialized engineers who have an incredible depth of knowledge in one niche or engineers with a wide breadth of knowledge (in their area of course, ie not making a bridge engineer design a sub-station)? Both have advantages and disadvantages and seem to lead to different business models.

On a side note, I got to sit-in with a team of those niched people who were brought together to work on an R&D project. It was great experience to see them in action and what they could accomplish together.

It might be a good new thread to start... "In your experience, were you exposed to a wide range of design areas or more niched into one single area? cite positives/negatives, etc" or something along those lines.

I posted a reply a day ago, but somehow it never appeared, so here goes again. (I hate when that happens)

Teams should be allowed (encouraged) to police themselves. Management needs to monitor the teams performance as a whole, not by individuals alone. If one member of a team doesn't pull his weight, it will reflect on the performance of the whole group. Non-performing members will soon be weeded out and replaced by people who will be part of a team. This will eliminate foot draggers and those along for the ride.

It may sound old fashioned, but a worker should do his job and feel good that he gave his 110% at the end of the day. The Japanese have this work ethic; that is why they produce quality products.

Hi Yusef

We would have gotten on like a house on fire. That means something good in Australia. I had a boss that treated me like that and he could make us perform miracles, literally. The best thing was that he could still outperform any of us at anything.

After hours beers and food, all bonus, or playing squash, his favorite, would keep most of us a team, even after hours. Getting up for him in the morning even if a bit on the sick side was a pleasure.

When I told him that I was heading to the other end of the world and that this would happen soon we had a few drinks and all was good. Even I was replaceable. What happened about a month later was that he showed up at our local bar and handed me an envelope.

The tickets for me and my family to Australia. A bonus! He had found a way to bribe the travel agent and he was handed our tickets. A few weeks later and we were gone and we never saw each other again. I had learned my lesson.

What a man, Ky.

Are they hiring?

This was more than 20 years ago, so in the good old days. I believe his style is still around or at least I hope. The few bosses I had since......

Just about every person has talents and weaknesses. There is no "group" solution, you have to deal with them as individuals. For each person ask yourself "what is this person's strengths"? not "what are this person's weaknesses".

Too often people want perfection out of other people despite the fact that:

1. Perfect people don't exist
2. Deficiencies some areas often lead to advanced abilities in others.

Also managers often look for people with the same strengths and weaknesses as themselves since they tend to minimize their own weaknesses as unimportant and emphasize their own strengths as important out of vanity. It's human nature. It also leads to a few happy employees and a lot of bitter employees who see inequality.

I'm not suggesting people get special treatment. I'm just suggesting that a workforce are individuals, not a herd.

My advice is to put the management books down and start talking to your employees.

Agreed - the management books and seminars are so much eye candy for the hopeless.