But only when it truly matters, lest your people feel that *you* are the one making a decision and engagement and accountability drop.
I have no idea how the military works, but interesting to hear it is different though: how does it work there? When the manager steps in to correct irrelevant stuff, do people feel more disengaged because of it or more motivated by it?
Most of what we do is irrelevant, as in inconsequential and/or reversible.
Some of it we are forced to by circumstances (e.g. policies, politics, habit) and some of it is just a smaller part of a bigger relevant thing (e.g. the title of a slide in an important presentation, a detail in an otherwise important project).
Of course there’s a degree of subjectivity (there always is), but that’s ok: if you are the boss you are paid for making those judgement call.
Which of course doesn’t mean that you’ll be right, but it does mean that, as long as you are holding the position, defining relevance is your prerogative.
Semantics and tangents aside, my question - how do people in the military respond to corrections on minor stuff - still stands though.
Happy to hear your thoughts on that if you’d care to share!
Irrelevant stuff? Define that very specifically. To me, irrelevant stuff is: one, subjective; two, it doesn't move the needle; and three, it depends on which needle you are talking about.
If it is truly irrelevant in the broad sense, why are you doing it at all? Just because you think it is irrelevant does not mean it is.
Baloney. The view a manager or a leader has is broader and worthy of consideration, just as your subordinates views are worthy of consideration. You can step in at any of those quadrant by offering suggestions not pushing changes. You can discuss changes you believe are important and decide together if they are warranted. You can elicit from your subordinates the direct, secondary, and tertiary effects of decisions, too. This approach helps your subordinates develop their thinking to see a broader picture and consider what you need from them from that view too.
Talking about this like it is a dinner is a silly and limited analogy. I find nearly all analogies extremely limited because they are overly simple. And even if it is someone else's dinner in my house, I can still be a good host and focus on the mission of creating an atmosphere where people can share good food and celebrate coming together.
If you haven't built that kind of mission orientation into your people, you have failed as a leader and manager. From your POV, the military would never work. Funny that it does, and veterans are in such demand as employees.
Of course you can do that! And you should.
But only when it truly matters, lest your people feel that *you* are the one making a decision and engagement and accountability drop.
I have no idea how the military works, but interesting to hear it is different though: how does it work there? When the manager steps in to correct irrelevant stuff, do people feel more disengaged because of it or more motivated by it?
Most of what we do is irrelevant, as in inconsequential and/or reversible.
Some of it we are forced to by circumstances (e.g. policies, politics, habit) and some of it is just a smaller part of a bigger relevant thing (e.g. the title of a slide in an important presentation, a detail in an otherwise important project).
Of course there’s a degree of subjectivity (there always is), but that’s ok: if you are the boss you are paid for making those judgement call.
Which of course doesn’t mean that you’ll be right, but it does mean that, as long as you are holding the position, defining relevance is your prerogative.
Semantics and tangents aside, my question - how do people in the military respond to corrections on minor stuff - still stands though.
Happy to hear your thoughts on that if you’d care to share!
Irrelevant stuff? Define that very specifically. To me, irrelevant stuff is: one, subjective; two, it doesn't move the needle; and three, it depends on which needle you are talking about.
If it is truly irrelevant in the broad sense, why are you doing it at all? Just because you think it is irrelevant does not mean it is.
Your premise is very weak.
Baloney. The view a manager or a leader has is broader and worthy of consideration, just as your subordinates views are worthy of consideration. You can step in at any of those quadrant by offering suggestions not pushing changes. You can discuss changes you believe are important and decide together if they are warranted. You can elicit from your subordinates the direct, secondary, and tertiary effects of decisions, too. This approach helps your subordinates develop their thinking to see a broader picture and consider what you need from them from that view too.
Talking about this like it is a dinner is a silly and limited analogy. I find nearly all analogies extremely limited because they are overly simple. And even if it is someone else's dinner in my house, I can still be a good host and focus on the mission of creating an atmosphere where people can share good food and celebrate coming together.
If you haven't built that kind of mission orientation into your people, you have failed as a leader and manager. From your POV, the military would never work. Funny that it does, and veterans are in such demand as employees.