Leadership Principles | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Leadership Principles

Everybody is replaceable, always remember that when you're are firing up the tree, Most places would have you canned and banned by now if that's the case. Don't now who you are working for, but they sound like they run on a tight budget to profit ratio
 
the ultimate success is to move a worker from the ****-bird category to the main body of the productive workforce
It is satisfying, but very time consuming...I think I've done it twice....can't count the number I've actively dispatched

So....this opens a topic that's controversial and uncomfortable.

Do you think everyone is trainable?

Personally, I do not. I think everyone is trainable only to a certain extent. If it is too far from their "soul", they break or repeatedly fail.

There is a huge difference between a manager and a leader. A good manager is skilled at getting people to do things they don't want to do. A good leader is skilled at getting people to do things they never thought they could do.
I convinced a teammate to go on a date with a girl who he thought was out of his league.

He got her after =) lol

But aside from that ridiculous scenario, thank you for the input. Will remember that one.

Everybody is replaceable, always remember that when you're are firing up the tree, Most places would have you canned and banned by now if that's the case.

You're totally right lol I legit need to spend time and think about "How am I going to answer behavior questions on my next interview because no filtered answers will get me thrown out."
 
Last edited:
So....this opens a topic that's controversial and uncomfortable.

Do you think everyone is trainable?

Personally, I do not. I think everyone is trainable only to a certain extent. If it is too far from their "soul", they break or repeatedly fail.
no
there are still bad hires that sneak through the system
virtually every one of the bottom 20% that are not engaged are bad hires
very few of them can be upgraded, they need to be identified and moved out
 
to be trainable they have to want to be trained. Its that lead a horse to water but cant make him drink analogy. Ties to J_F's 20% already on the bottom idea.
I'll teach you how to ask probing and important questions, how to understand a clients needs, how to take the product in front of you and create a market. Then you have to go do that, without hand holding.

Hardest job in the world is working in a company with an HR dept hiring to fill positions. If you dont get to interview and yes/no a new hire, good luck. You'll spend a lot of time pounding square pegs into round holes. Most companies with bad hires, HIRED THEM! Then didn't want to deal with it in a timely fashion. Middle manager wants to look like he can "get along" and get it done, HR wants to shine, co workers resent the new guy with righty tighty/lefty loosey tatooed on his arm.....
 
co workers resent the new guy with righty tighty/lefty loosey tatooed on his arm.....
there' lies a problem, most people will judge on appearance as opposed to knowledge of the job they was hired to do
 
there are still bad hires that sneak through the system
virtually every one of the bottom 20% that are not engaged are bad hires
very few of them can be upgraded, they need to be identified and moved out

Man...to say I was shocked at some of the people I first encountered at the workplace would be an understatment.
I've seen folks hire people that belong to their same ethnic or religious community, folks 'exchange' kids to fill up coveted co-op positions, and people in higher up positions use their influence to secure a good spot for their kids or close family in other departments via work acquaintances.

I still remember those times when I first started out and had to deal with a few senior engineers - at times it had me wondering how some of them got past the interview process because I was 100% sure they'd fail an English test if they were given one and some of them even had trouble comprehending a simple technical issue that even I, a new grad at the time had no problem troubleshooting/understanding.

I get it, people have different ethnic/religious/cultural backgrounds - but I'd expect there to be a minimum level to be satisfied when it comes to skill sets and communication.
I think HR is a joke...most of the people hiring already have someone in mind that they want to hire but simply go through the HR process to satisfy whatever due process is in place.

What was that saying again? Something about 70% of the jobs in the market not even being posted ..or something along those lines..
 
funny how titles can be interpreted differently
OP is asking about Leaders
this does not indicate any particular position on the org chart
some members here immediately equate that to a Manager

if you get into a company large enough, maybe 500 or more?
a dept manager does not need, and likely doesn't have, people Leadership skills
they have the education, background, and business acumen to make good decisions
someone else has to take the plan and execute it

I figure every bad hire I've dealt with
there was a dept manager involved in the hiring
they should stay away from people
 
SNIP. Too much info lol

Man...to say I was shocked at some of the people I first encountered at the workplace would be an understatment.
I've seen folks hire people that belong to their same ethnic or religious community, folks 'exchange' kids to fill up coveted co-op positions, and people in higher up positions use their influence to secure a good spot for their kids or close family in other departments via work acquaintances.

I remember this as well...

I kept thinking, because I strived to do well in school, that everyone would have the same strong conscientious principles that myself and friends had (we all cared about doing our work to the best of our ability.)

The work world is worse than university/college by a long shot when it comes to this.

I still remember those times when I first started out and had to deal with a few senior engineers - at times it had me wondering how some of them got past the interview process because I was 100% sure they'd fail an English test if they were given one and some of them even had trouble comprehending a simple technical issue that even I, a new grad at the time had no problem troubleshooting/understanding.

What problem domain are you in? I'm curious because I've had the same experience. Two members on my team have 15+ years on me, and I've been teaching them since day 1. I would not have hired them. But because they're already there...well, gotta make due with the cards.
 
Last edited:
There are also ones that want to be trained but aren't capable (thinking specifically of software development, but it's probably also true of other knowledge work). These people can be trained, but you have to be realistic about their overall potential and the cost to bring them to a higher level. Training a new hire is literally an investment, usually paid for by someone else's time. Assigning a 10 or 20 year veteran (you know - the ones that actually get things done) to spend weeks of their time to bring a new hire up to speed isn't worth it if it becomes obvious that the new hire will never be able to perform independently at more than a rudimentary level
 
I've seen folks hire people that belong to their same ethnic or religious community, folks 'exchange' kids to fill up coveted co-op positions, and people in higher up positions use their influence to secure a good spot for their kids or close family in other departments via work acquaintances.
The fastest way for me to lose faith in a company is to parachute in incompetent kids. In two past jobs I told them if they hired their kids I would leave as it was obvious what the owners priorities were and it was not success of the team and company. Twice I left for better jobs with no regrets.
 
There are also ones that want to be trained but aren't capable (thinking specifically of software development, but it's probably also true of other knowledge work). These people can be trained, but you have to be realistic about their overall potential and the cost to bring them to a higher level. Training a new hire is literally an investment, usually paid for by someone else's time. Assigning a 10 or 20 year veteran (you know - the ones that actually get things done) to spend weeks of their time to bring a new hire up to speed isn't worth it if it becomes obvious that the new hire will never be able to perform independently at more than a rudimentary level

I think the FAANGs have this figured out with how they interview. But I also understand most companies do not have the same resources FAANGs do (5 rounds of whiteboards? WTF!)

This is also why I've recently been searching so much about IQ because it seems all the "top dog" tech company interviews are just disguised (brutal) IQ tests. The behavioral portion is an afterthought at the end of 1 filter, and 5 rounds of whiteboards.

I'm afraid to say anything because I dont want to be found out lol.

200_d.gif

All good, I get it lolol
 
I've been a manager and I've had employees, first thing you need is to know your stuff, you have to be skilled at the work. Second you need to know how to motivate workers, you either have the people skills to do that or you don't
to be an employer is a huge commitment in your time and resources.
 
This is also why I've recently been searching so much about IQ because it seems all the "top dog" tech company interviews are just disguised (brutal) IQ tests. The behavioral portion is an afterthought at the end of 1 filter, and 5 rounds of whiteboards.

I didn't say it earlier because it makes me sound like a total *******, but yes, in my experience the distinguishing feature in someone's overall potential in software development is intelligence. Can they communicate clearly (both transmitting and receiving)? Can they back up their opinions with reasoned arguments, instead of emotion or dogma? Can they describe specific variables or conditions that are relevant to the problem they're trying to solve?

In full disclosure, I kind of suck at filtering out poor performers during interviews. Maybe it's just the generally low quality of the candidates we get, that we're willing to take them anyway (our area of the industry is not something people are falling over themselves to work on).

Intelligence isn't the only factor in success though, just the one that determines whether you are technically competent or not. Intrinsic motivation and emotional intelligence are probably just as important in overall success.
 
I've been a manager and I've had employees, first thing you need is to know your stuff, you have to be skilled at the work.
I like that approach but I know some people that are successful and have no idea at all. Buy a franchise and sell, sell, sell. Back office/shop gets the work done. You need to believe what they are telling you as you have no flipping idea if it is true or not. I very much dislike this model but it works for some people.
 
I've been a manager and I've had employees, first thing you need is to know your stuff, you have to be skilled at the work. Second you need to know how to motivate workers, you either have the people skills to do that or you don't
don't agree completely.

Look, plenty of managers get hired to run a specific department. Same manager might later be moved to run a completely different department, or promoted to oversee multiple departments that they previously had no background in. The skill and knowledge of the specific work can be gained on the fly, but if you don't have the basics of leadership, critical thinking and decision making, its game over.

a former boss of mine once asked;

What do you think is more important? For you to make me look good or for me to make you look good?
Her reasoning was, the employees are the ones actually doing the work. If the company fired her tomorrow she would be replaced and the same work would just continue. Better to provide opportunities for us to shine in front of management/senior management so we could progress in our careers and gain that confidence.

I don't need a people person manager, i just need one that can make informed decisions and have my back.
 
Anything I ever managed other people to do I had to be able to do better, usually taught them what had to be done. ymmv
some never do anything other then manage other workers, that job would suck imho.
 
There is different leadership styles and each has it’s effectiveness.

Self awareness helps most lean into their strengths and find ways to deal with their blind spots and areas they aren’t as proficient. After all, we can’t be the best of everything to everyone. It just doesn’t exist.

I’ve always admired the quiet leaders that allow the best to do their best and recognize their contributions publicly.

Mistakes are just an opportunity. However, repeated mistakes need to be addressed with accountability.

Being able to adapt to the team and being able to listen to them, be empathetic and encourage them to contribute, recognize their contribution and giving them responsibility for their part earns a lot of respect from them and earns more respect as the team hears the accolades from subordinates and through the ranks.

I’ve often been seen as someone that was going to be fired or promoted for the same actions or approach.

Making decisions with valuable input from the collective, I was willing to live with either consequence and always rewarded positively.

Early in my career in a call centre environment, I’d often get callers asking for my manager. I’d offer them a deal. Let me hear their concern and if I couldn’t assist, I’d transfer them immediately. But, give me the chance first. Never had anyone say no. Never had anyone ask for a manager. And after enough calls, never had anyone ask to speak to my manager. My colleagues received calls from others asking to speak to me. Even after they spoke to a manager, they would ask for me.

I ended up being director of the call centre in 2 years. Started as a young part time temp agent. Within 4 years, I was director of 3 sites, Montreal, Toronto and Tempe AZ.

I took a role in sales as the bean counters looked to reduce head count in 2006. Love my job outside of management now. No HR crap. Just my targets and working from home.


Edit: Even in my current role, my peers and management look to me as the leader and influencer of the team. My input is value because I understand the stakeholders and I take a position based on what the business is looking for. So everyone knows the ups and downs of each approach. But, whatever the bumps in the road are, everyone gets it and is willing to move ahead.

No one has the best solution or offer for everyone. It’s knowing the client and their needs and deciding if the value proposition makes sense for that client. Makes it easier to qualify the client. Walk away when it doesn’t. I’ve had previous prospects I’ve walked away from approach me for advice. I give it to them for free. My network of opportunities continues to grow and evolve daily.

I’m just a schmuck that didn’t graduate college and seem to do alright. I’ve slipped on a few banana peels along the way but, no regrets.

Make your own path. Learn things. Grow. Prosper.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bahaha

I am literally in a career fork right now and this has helped

Thank you

edit - SOO off topic but I don't want to create a new thread

If you were a new grad would you ..

- Work in a small company, gain work experience and bail
- Start off at a big firm right away
 

Back
Top Bottom