Id say knocking the lads of at 12 every day and Fridays off.
Higround said:

Id say knocking the lads of at 12 every day and Fridays off.
To a certain extent that reply sums up the point. The answer to your question carpets will be different depending on who you ask, and more to the point, where they sit in the food chain.

Good management can depend on alot of things. Firm but fair, knowledge of those they manage, correctly trained (and able to understand that training), all over their responsibilities, have the trust of those you manage, understand what their troops do for a living etc etc etc. The're all qualities of good management and are qualities that are taught and grow with time. Your question would have been more appropriately posed as "Who makes a good manager within our Corps". Whole different ball game that one.
1. Don't ask your guys to do something you wouldn't do yourself.
2. Know your troops and their future aspirations, get off your arse and actively help them towards them.
3. Sweeping the garages five times in one day, does not constitute work. If you are not busy, organise something constructive, although in this day and age no one should be idle.
4. Having the ability to shout at someone will not make you a good man manager. Knowing when to shout does.
5. Most importantly - no one should be able to out drink the Tp Sgt. :wink:
you can be an authority figure and have respect going both ways... iv found that iv always worked harder for the teacher/cpl/sgt if that was the case.
A manager, first and foremost needs to understand the core business and ethos of the organisation, regardless of what that organisation does. They also need to agree with that core ethos and be singing off the same songsheet or they shouldn't be managing (only existing). He or she needs to understand what main resources they have at their disposal and make best use of those resources. Our main resource is personnel, so cherish them. It's better to retain than to recruit.

Keep everyone busy with worthwhile, challenging tasks. Give them slack when they need it and they'll put in the extra work when required. Make hay while the sun shines! If you're a manager, give your subordinates real responsibility without micromanaging them. Allow them the chance to develop as managers in their own right and, importantly, allow them to learn from mistakes that we all make from time to time. That's where many managers fall down, as they're terrible at delegation and are scared of failure. I also prefer managers to be positive and enthusiastic and pass on some of that fire to their subordinates. You could argue about the leader versus manager concept though, however I'll skip that for now.

And then sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labour!
The reason a lot of managers fail is they see delegation as a loss of control or power. A good manager will have no ego to stoke and pass on credit where it is due thus earning respect from those working with/for him and a willingness to help in the future.

Bloody hell PD you just got some new management phrase bog roll?
PD what you say is very good. Now, honestly, how many managers have you seen or worked with that are, as you describe? i.e. what is the reality?
rtfm-fool said:
Bloody hell PD you just got some new management phrase bog roll?
No, SOinC was looking over my shoulder while I was typing. I thought I'd better type something interesting!
The ability to make decisions and stand by them. But also the ability to listen to what the troops require.
Knowledge of the troops and a good working relationship that is approachable but is firm when required.
The ability to support a shit decision from above and see it through even though he disagrees with the decision himself

Leads by example.
Displays Corps Ethos.
Quick Google search defines

Leadership: The ability to lead, including inspiring others in a shared vision. Leaders have clear visions and they communicate these visions to their employees. They foster an environment within their companies that encourages risk taking, recognition and rewards, and empowerment allowing other leaders to emerge.
unfortunately none of this applies to my unit. working days are the "same siht different day". one of our so-called superiors took a bitch last week when us juniors were having a laugh amongst ourselves when we had finished our tasks he gave us. then they wonder why we have all put transfer requests in!!!
PD: Excellent post mate :thumleft:

Carpets: I don´t know what it´s like these days, but in the early to mid 90´s there were some excellent seniors at 231 who ran the shop just as described by PD. In a certain Troop, when the situation allowed it, they let JNCO´s take full responsibility for the Troop, which in turn motivated them to achieve even higher standards :D
Certa cito, agreed mate. But i can recall some outstanding seniors when i was a younger soldier. I think you get more cynical as the years pass, perhaps? Perhaps, for people it is hard, especially when you think you can somehow do things better but unfortunately can not, purely bacause the position you have in the old foodchain? Frustating, maybe?
Carpets, I think the cynicism is a natural progression mate, because the longer you´re in a certain job (applies for CIVDIV as well), the more you see which beggars belief.

As for the foodchain side of life, I fully agree. I know personally of two Sergeants, who spent a hell of a long time as full screws and as a result missed the Sgt -SSgt bracket. Both of them were excellent tradesmen and cracking managers and I know for a fact that one of them was really hacked off because he had the ability and flair to "manage" as per PD´s definition, but due to his rank could only do it to a limited extent.

Food for thought for the hierarchy perhaps ?
Excellent thread with no slagging (nearly unbelievable in the Sigs Forum).

Brill post PD but I need to disagree (not an Operator thing).

I would suggest that firstly there is a fundamental difference between leadership and management.

Managers, manage. They manage resources be they people or items or whatever. A good manager will manage their resources to the best of their ability and get the best out of the resources, be it service industry or sales.

Leadership is the leading of people. Inspiring people to do the will of the individual (whether negatively or postively).

Now where the line gets a little fuzzy is when the manager has people also as a resource. Now inorder to get the best from those people he must use skills related to management and leadership.

Example 1. Stores manager (no staff) Leadership is no good. I would like to see him inspire his stock (unless it is living stock).

Example 2. Stores Manager (with staff). He will have excellent management proceses in place to ensure that all stock is accounted for, taken on account correctly and timely, delivered, re-ordered etc etc. But, because these processes are human driven or part human driven, in order to get the maximum return he must motivate and inspire his staff. If he does so he is now using Leadership skills not management skills par sae. The management part is that inorder to get the best of his people he will need to use leadership.

Now if he just left them to get on with the job, would he be a bad manager if they did the job but not to the best of their abilties. I would suggest that the processes put in place by the manager ensure (if correctly adhered to) that the job is done. He would therefore have at least succeded in this role.

But as we all know, to strive that extra bit means he should also incorporate leadership skills as his staff are also part of the resource, although not the major part (the actual stores held being the prime).

Example 3. Stores manager (staff or not) has not got the skills to put into place the necessary processes but by god is good at motivating people. Will the stores succede? Only if he happens to be lucky and have people who know what they are doing and do it for him. If not they will all fail, be happy at it, but fail anyway.

Sorry, long thread but bored and its lunch time.
Right, honesty. I believe that the problem you get in the Army is this, because the way we are promoted, and the fact we put all these ideals into our young soldiers, which is excellent. Every now and again we get it wrong. We then find ourselves in a situation where we have these young managers in positions of authority, who are striving for the next promotion - rightly so- and thus totally negating and forgetting what there role is at the very basic level. To amplify, looking after one owns career to such an extent there forgetting the teams needs and/or teams or individuals needs. Conversely, there are some who look after others needs, to such an extent, that they forget to manage themselves correctly.
I think that people do exactly what is required to do, to get themselves promoted. Now, that sounds stupid, well why wouldn't you? But, i will bet my last shilling, there is people out there who know they have done something for there own 'betterment', if you will, at the expense of the teams needs, or someone else's individuals needs.

Latest Threads