Alexander Friedman you or read online. You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader

Hello, dear visitors of our blog. We continue our series of interviews and today our guest is an expert in the field of regular management, consultant and business coach - Alexander Friedman.

What three qualities must a person have to become a good leader?

Who should pay for employee training? Why is full business automation not always good, and how do you understand that you are in the right place?

We’ll talk about this and much more, and of course, using examples of small businesses, today. Read the article further or watch the video - the choice is yours 😉

Nikita Zhestkov: In your opinion, what place should management have for small businesses compared to marketing?

Alexander Fridman: From my point of view, management is still at the top of all processes, because it manages marketing.

Marketing by itself will not work. You can hire a superb supermarket specialist, but he also needs to be managed, and marketing will have to be built into the company’s management system, corresponding with sales, logistics and production.

Who will do all this? Everything that happens on its own is done badly. This means that management comes from above and controls.

And in this sense, marketing is fundamentally no different from logistics, from anything else - these are the components of success.

Let's be honest, what is better - to invent well and produce poorly, or produce well and sell poorly? Pointless.

The result will be if we connect everything correctly. Small businesses need to keep this all in mind. Because no matter what leg he begins to limp on, it will still be bad.

For me, a sign of a small business is when the owner personally manages his subordinates and, as a rule, intelligence is enough for this. At first.

But as the business grows, if the business can be pushed into orbit, it’s time to acquire professional skills. Better sooner than later.

On your website you often write the following phrase: there are no magic pills, there is a system.

That is, are you convinced that any person can be made into a good leader? Or are there still people who do not have a predisposition to this?

A manager is the same profession. And for any profession there can be abilities and contraindications. There are people who, due to their nature, simply find it more difficult.

For people, which character traits would be more difficult?

I can name three qualities that are important for a leader:

Openness of thinking. What I mean by open-mindedness is the ability to learn and relearn.
Perseverance. This implies the ability to overcome obstacles, the ability to forgive oneself, the ability to work with difficulties.
And if a leader has perseverance, but does not have an open mind, perseverance turns into obstinacy and categoricalness.
If a person has an open mind, but lacks perseverance, then he turns into a “talker.” He understands everything, but he can't do anything.
Demandingness. A leader must be able to ask people. If a manager does not know how to do this, he can only work with exceptionally respectable people, from whom there is no need to demand anything, who will do everything themselves.

And without these three qualities it will be difficult for a leader. The rest are naturally welcome. But these three qualities seem to me to be key.

Are these three qualities inherent in a Russian person? We often compare ourselves to Americans. Still, is this our mentality or is it the same among Americans?

You know, about anthropology or sociology, cultural studies - I’m not an expert, but if you allow me, I’ll turn it around a little differently.

Firstly, it seems to me that for Russia, the German management model is preferable, because mentally we are less at odds with them.

Logically, we are closer to them than to the Americans. This is my point of view. But again, Russia is also huge, the regions differ from each other, so this is a very conditional conversation.

Alexander Fridman about the management model in Russia

America is the forge of management; it was invented there. The leading management schools are there, a small number are in Britain, France, but the main ones are there.

But sometimes people ask, will Western management work for us? Western - what is it? What is west of Kaliningrad?

I found this explanation for myself - the principles of management are unchanged. Like the principles of mathematics or strength of materials.

But the application of principles cannot ignore mentality. And therefore, direct transfer of methods without understanding how everything works is impossible.

A classic story of paradox. When Japan showed America the market for radio equipment and cars in the 60s.

America began to copy the Japanese experience. But the most interesting thing is that management was brought to Japan by Edwards Deming, that is, it was brought by an American. And they started doing a reverse translation again, and it turned out badly.

This is a classic of all textbooks - the conflict between American and Japanese management. Russia is not an outcast here at all.

These, excuse me, are excuses from inept managers who, in the absence of results, always answer my dialogues with the same thing.

And they look something like this: “Well, we’re in Russia.” AND? “Well, you know what kind of people we have.” What kind of people are we and you? “Well, you understand our customs.” I always tell them my favorite phrase:

“Guys, if you don’t know how to manage, you don’t have to use customs as an excuse. Russia should not be held responsible for you. If you can’t do it yourself, it’s Russia’s fault.”
Alexander Fridman

The mentality is different in all countries, but the principles of management are the same. There is no need to imitate anyone, you need to study.

But when we study success history, we can't just copy the things we like.

We will remind you of the old story about the old man Hottabych, who copied the telephone and made it out of black marble. Everything is fine, but for some reason the phone didn’t work.

An attempt to “copy-paste” without understanding the entire mechanism, including the mentality, is pointless. I usually say copying - no, studying and understanding - yes.

How much of your latest book is based on American technology?

My book “How to Punish Subordinates” is not based on American technologies. It is based on the intersection of management, psychology and a little pedagogy.

Now I’ll probably tell you something funny. My book, if you trust the publisher's search, is the only one in the world in terms of punishment.

A search was made in the English-speaking and Russian-speaking space. There are no books about punishment specifically in the field of management. And this precisely reflects, as it seems to me, a fairly understandable policy of double standards.

About my own book

Many states have a law that an employee can quit at the same time, but the employer can fire him at the same time.

That is, they have equal rights. The democracy of Western management is greatly exaggerated; we judge it from books that contain tenderness, but the reality there is much harsher.

Then about the fines. In Russia they are prohibited. In an official manner. But still they do everything. Therefore, please tell me, are fines motivation, stimulation or demotivation?

The fact is that my book “How to Punish Subordinates” concerns only moral punishments.

Moreover, I consider material punishment for people who think extremely harmful.

But the level of lower management is still so bad that it simply won’t work without fining sellers or janitors.

I don't think financial punishment is a good tool. Firstly, a fine is a sign of helplessness, because the manager does not need a fine, he needs a result.

In addition, I consider a fine to be a form of internal corporate corruption. A simple example: You fine me for being late.

I know the cost. That is, I can pay you this amount and be late. So? No, this is nonsense.

As I already said, the first is managerial helplessness, the second is that by taking money from an employee, the manager is actually entering into a corruption conspiracy.

And one more reason, third - by taking money from an employee, the manager admits his own helplessness.

He is forced to charge a fee for something that he cannot provide results. This seems ideologically and technically absolutely wrong to me.

And I believe that the leader with the help management competencies must ensure results and prevent the employee from committing a violation.

You don’t have the approach that a company should have human factor. Or is it all a system?

We cannot ignore the human factor. the main task leader - to assemble a team of like-minded people, to ensure results.

I believe that one of the aspects of a manager’s job is to ensure professional operation of assets.

The asset is the subordinates. In professional operation, the human factor cannot be ignored.

We must provide an individual approach, we must try to give people the work that they like, and they will do it brilliantly. But even in small companies you won’t always find a job everyone likes.

And at this time of day, and at this time of year too. What if an employee Bad mood since morning. It turns out the human factor.

But why not give him a job now? For example: if Masha loves pears, and Dasha loves apples, and I have both pears and apples, then it’s probably better to feed one what he loves.

But this cannot always be done, because personal dependence will arise. Masha will not be able to eat apples, and Dasha will not be able to eat pears. Any individualization has boundaries beyond which it becomes unprofitable.

“We need to provide an individual approach, we need to try to give people the work that they like, and they will do it brilliantly. But even in small companies you won’t always find a job to everyone’s liking.”
Alexander Fridman

I liked your phrase “professional exploitation”. It turns out that it leads to the fact that all staff mistakes come down to the main mistake of the manager.

That is, we can say for sure that everything that happens in the company is the actions of the manager?

Absolutely. The wrong bees produce the wrong honey. People work the way they are managed.

And every leader deserves his employees. A professional leader does not have bad subordinates.

After competition begins to grow, the market begins to shrink and a crisis sets in, the owner understands that the screws need to be tightened.

And it begins to drag on, and the staff begins to either crumble or protest.

In this case, is it possible to correct the command that already existed, or do you still need to understand that the old horse can no longer be harnessed?

Indeed, there is such a thing as stages of organizational development.

If a person does not need to be pushed, he is already ours. Powers are dismantled like weapons on alert. I reached out, took it, did it, fine. But we cannot build a five-story house using barn technology.

About like-minded people

There is such a thing as the need to change management principles. One of the basic aspects of development management is what strategic management does.

He must understand that no matter what you start, there will be resisters who change the status quo. This is the first. Second, resisters will often be among the best.

Because the better a person is at the previous stage, the less interested he is in change. Of course, the company must do everything to preserve the gene pool. But the company must be willing to cut.

One of the most pressing problems of all managers is that the staff constantly pushes the manager.

For every issue, for every little thing. Give me some of the simplest tools that can be implemented today.

Fine. I'll give it to you. But, at the same time, a reservation can be made. I have a very negative attitude towards the idea of learning a profession through the main secret.

The main secret is that I know and can do it. There is no main secret in any profession. You need to know not the solution, but the principle of the solution.

So, advice: the first thing is to give people a guaranteed day and time to meet. The quantity and frequency depend on the type of activity. For example, each top manager is guaranteed two hours once a week.

“People work the way they are managed. And every leader deserves his employees. A professional leader does not have bad subordinates.”
Alexander Fridman

But besides this scheduled meeting, I must have other access points. I usually recommend this: a subordinate can meet with me, say, on Thursday from 15:00 to 16:00 as scheduled.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday at the end of the day I am always in place and highlight the “captain's bridge”. The subordinate knows that he can call me, my phone works, and contact me.

The third possibility is that I have so-called “chaos windows” in the schedule. Let’s say I work from 09:00 to 11:00, from 11:00 to 12:00 I have a “chaos window”.

And a subordinate who cannot wait until the “captain’s bridge”, that is, the question is urgent, then he opens my calendar and says: “When is Alexander’s next window of chaos?”

And finally, the emergency channel. With a cry of “guard,” he can burst into me at any second and get me from anywhere.

But we understand that if he does something while shouting “guard” and waits for a break... there will be an educational process.

If he messes with something during the break and waits until the evening, there will be an educational process. If he says in the evening that he is waiting for a scheduled meeting for the second time, there will be an educational process.

Therefore, it is not enough to create rules, you need to support them. Usually everything is lined up within two weeks.

But again there are nuances: you need to meet with someone once a week, with someone once a day, and with someone once a month is enough. This is unknown to me.

To summarize, conditionally simple way relieve the manager from constant “tugging”.

This is a series of scheduled meetings - one, and the possibility of extraordinary access - two. And finally, emergency - three.

WE ARE ALREADY MORE THAN 29,000 people.
TURN ON

Is it possible to immediately find a “ready” employee at the present time?

Labor market, staff shortage in all cities, including the largest cities. There are 300,000 people in the city, they say you can’t find them, in Moscow they say you can’t find them, in my native Latvia, where about two hundred million people live, you can’t find them.

There is no such thing as a bad labor market, there is intense competition for labor resources. Therefore, you need to be able to compete.

Following. Requirements for the position must be tied to functionality. Very often they try to look for Batman, that is, a person who is highly motivated, professional, insanely moral, and so on.

That is, everyone is looking for ideal people. But there are none. They still take those who are there. But they work with them as if they were ideal. It turns out bad. There is a saying: “If you look for a wizard, you will get a storyteller.”

About ideal employees

Therefore, you can find it, but first of all there must be internal competition, you must first develop your own, and only then look for it.

But again, if this does not contradict their characteristics. There is no need to teach your dog to climb trees.

How can you check that a person will not steal? Is there any specific technique?

The technique is quite standard. Firstly, when we talk about assessing people, we must remember the quote from the American George Patton that in this filthy world there are no guarantees, there is a possibility. Professionals operate with probabilities.

If you do something right, the probability is higher. If you do it wrong, the probability is lower, and significantly, exponentially.

But accuracy - never. There are fairly professional tests that can reveal a person’s obvious tendencies not only to steal, but also to violate agreements and play for oneself.

I don't know of any other simple methods. I am not ready to solve complex issues using simple methods.

There are testing methods, which also include the polygraph. But it also does not guarantee 100% accuracy.

Let's get back to real life. There are such hackneyed opinions - people change, or, on the contrary, people do not change.

The second option is more popular. Within the framework of employees: are they changing or is there no longer any point? If we see that he is not succeeding.

Each person has some kind of elasticity, resilience, like any system. He can change some things, but he cannot change others.

And therefore, when something doesn’t work again, the question is always: “What caused this?” Lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of skills?!

Because it happens that a person simply does not have technology, and the company does not have a feedback system set up.

Let's divide entrepreneurs into two types. There are entrepreneurs who believe that employees can and should be trained.

And there are those who say that I will now invest money in him, he will leave and open his own business. Still, it is necessary to train or not, and the main question is who should pay?

First, do you need to train? Let us solve the problem with engineering. I need the employee to be able to do certain things.

If he knows how, he probably doesn’t need to be trained. On the other hand, there is an idea that if he doesn’t know how, then I need to fire him and look for someone who can.

But I’ll say right away that from the point of view of forming a team, it’s still more profitable to train someone who understands something.

What if he leaves and opens his own business? Did you think that if you don’t train them, they will stay?!

I don’t see a dilemma here at all, because the manager very often looks for a solution without a problem. And I will say this: there are no problem-free decisions in management.

You choose between types of problems. And there are developmental problems, and there are entropic problems.

And we choose between them. But we never choose between the absence of problems and the presence of problems.

About training

Who pays? I believe that a company should invest in its employees. Another question is that she should teach not what they are interested in, but what the company needs.

Teaching what is interesting, and not what is needed, can only be done as additional motivation. You control me, you create motivation for me.

For example, Alexander Friedman achieved brilliant results, and the company paid for him to take a course in cacti breeding in the Atacama Desert, because Alexander’s hobby is cacti breeding.

This does not affect his cross stitch skill in any way. But this is wildly motivating, because he himself will not pay for this course.

And the company paid for him and his family’s training and accommodation at the SPA-Resort in Atacama. Alexander Friedman is proud. This is an exceptional case.

In other cases, the company develops me by profession and says: “Alexander, you do not have the right to refuse development.”

The democratic company McKinsey answered this well - develop or be free.

You can't refuse, I'm not asking you if you want to study. If you want to work, you will study.

If you don't want to work, you're free. You will learn from us, and we will give you techniques.

When you pay for my training, you have the right to put pressure on me. That is, you are not asking if I want to study.

No, of course, you sell it, tell me what it’s for, but suddenly I still didn’t want it. “No, I'm not interested in that.”

And you tell me: “Alexander, you don’t understand. This is due to your growth and tenure in the company. We don't need you in your current capacity. But we don't want to lose you.

Therefore, if you want to stay, the way there is through cross-stitching. Because the company faces strategic and….”, and then comes motivation. And I must understand very well what and what I am choosing between.

But the situation changes when you say: “Alexander, now you pay part of your training, and we pay the other part.”

Firstly, it is perceived as an extortion. Why do you, as a leader, want my development, but I have to pay? Through my training, you invest in yourself.

In addition, there is also such a concept: I paid, and now I have the right to decide whether to apply it or not. I paid, it's mine, right?

I want - I do, I want - no. What do you care? I paid for it. I bought a jacket and don't wear it. And that's how it works.

“I believe that a company should invest in its employees. Another question is that she should teach not what they are interested in, but what the company needs. Teaching what is interesting, and not what is needed, can only be done as additional motivation.”
Alexander Fridman

Therefore, the fact that people will be motivated to implement it in order to earn their money is a completely false message.

Another question is that you need to be able to implement the omission. This also requires instrumental things. That is, I completed the training, and then the manager meets with me and says: “Alexander, were you at the seminar on delegation?

Yes. - Tell me, what interested you most? - Oh, I learned a lot of new things there. - Alexander, as far as I know, the coach gives homework. You completed them, right?

I was going to do them, but I haven't done them yet. - Tell me, please (taking out a pencil), when do you plan to do this? -...

Ah, you can’t give a deadline now. Please write to me at e-mail, I want to be aware of your development.”

Let’s imagine that on the 5th the manager talked to me and said: “Alexander, you really did your homework and that’s good.

Now tell me, where are you going to start?” Do you understand?! You control me, you create motivation for me.

Therefore, I believe that only the company should pay. Everything else is extortion.

At the request of the majority, I ask a question. I have 20 people in my company. And let’s imagine that I want to automate my business and finally, like a normal entrepreneur, get out of it.

So that the business works for me, and not I for it. How long does it take to be 80-90% out of business?

I'll start from a little distance. This is exactly our mentality. We don't want to lead. We are considering this: how much can you shake your nerves already...

And this, by the way, fundamental difference from comrades west of Kaliningrad - at least old Europe and America. They work there all their lives.

IN different countries differently. Because a person is his place of self-realization. He has no intention of retiring.

And if he leaves, he can hire general director, but still takes part in the life of the company.

The role and structure change, but the person does not leave the business. Second. In order to take less part - this phrase “not me for business, but business for me” - you need (now you’ll laugh at the answer) to really set up the system corporate governance. All.

How much time? Plus or minus a kilometer?

I won't answer. Because it depends on your business, it depends on its current state, it depends on whether your business has money for a professional manager.

The manager is suffering because he is not a professional. We have an almost zero market for professional managers who can be entrusted with the company, and these people are attached somewhere.

And until there are enough of them to work in relatively small business, so I advise you to forget about this story altogether.

And I would ask a question to which I don’t even ask for answers: why do you want to leave business so much? Answer this question for yourself.

Could this be due to the fact that the leader performs feats every day? Every day he goes to war, not to work that brings pleasure.

If you are not professional, it is difficult for you. Professionals rarely suffer at work. Why do they come to work calmly? Everything is clear to them. This is a fundamental difference.

In the midst of a conversation

But again, on the other hand, if a person works from the heart, then it is also difficult for him, but when he leaves work, he experiences work fatigue.

Of course, he is tired, but he understands what he did, understands why, understands what will happen tomorrow.

But when he worked miracles all day long, in incomprehensible jumps, when he fought with reality, here he crawls out exhausted.

Because he understands that tomorrow he must again get results in a way unknown to science. That's why the leaders are running.

Not because they are lazy. They get tired of suffering. Why are they suffering? Because they are not professionals.

Therefore, colleagues, become professionals, then take a look. You will have an answer - “How long before I can leave the business?” Or maybe you don’t want to leave him. We ourselves need such a cow.

“A leader is always there where needed in this moment. This is the art of a leader - to understand where you should be now, and what your model is now, how you will motivate people.”
Alexander Fridman

Last question. Let's take two historical leaders - Spartacus and Napoleon. They have conceptually different management strategies.

Spartak is always at the head, ahead of the team, and is the first to run into battle. Napoleon, naturally, stands at the highest point and points his finger at where to run.

By the way, both ended badly. I would like to say with a quote from Zhvanetsky: “No matter what you do to a person, the dog crawls to the cemetery.” As he says: “Overeating leads to obesity, and undereating leads to anorexia.”

My question is this: in front or behind, or in the center, surrounded by protection, should the leader stand. What is better in the conditions of the 21st century?

Firstly, I am not out of irony or polemic, I am very calm about these phrases - “management of the 21st century”, “management of the 20th century”.

Leadership is a set of tools. And a leader must be able to have many faces. He must understand when to lead the attack, and when to stand in the center, and when to stand and give commands.

Because there are situations when you need to lead, motivate and be the first to take a shovel.

A leader is someone who knows how to organize and inspire. There is no answer - in the center, behind or in front.

A leader is always where he is needed at the moment. This is the art of a leader - to understand where you should be now, and what your model is now, how you will motivate people.

briefly about the main thing

Those who read to the end are real well done. We are sure that now you know a little more than most entrepreneurs.

And you will use Alexander’s advice in your professional activities.

P.S. Thanks to the Baikal Training Center for their help in creating the interview. Without you, we are nowhere.

A unique practical guide to building an integral and total system of effective corporate governance from a leading Russian business coach. A tough and pragmatic approach to management, taking into account the peculiarities of the Russian mentality and business customs.

This book is a unique practical guide to building a holistic and total system of effective corporate governance “from scratch” throughout the entire organization from top to bottom. The book will help any manager structure the already accumulated knowledge and skills and continue the targeted development of their managerial qualifications.

A tough and pragmatic approach to management, taking into account the peculiarities of the national mentality and Russian business customs.

Nothing extra. Only useful practical information, only the knowledge that can be instantly applied in practice in everyday work, only those techniques and technologies that work and produce results in many successful companies.

Alexander Fridman – managing partner consulting company Amadeus Group, member of the board of directors of several companies, author of more than 50 original programs and special courses for training managers.

Name: You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader
Author:
Year:
Genre: ,

Download
Excerpt

You or you: professional exploitation of subordinates. Regular management for a rational leader
Alexander Fridman

A tough and pragmatic approach to management, taking into account the peculiarities of the national mentality and Russian business customs.

Alexander Fridman is a managing partner of the consulting company Amadeus Group, a member of the board of directors of a number of companies, the author of more than 50 original programs and special courses...

All rights reserved. No part electronic version This book may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet or corporate networks, for private or public use without the written permission of the copyright owner.

Preface to the second edition
About people and homunculi

I express my deep gratitude to all readers who took the time to inform me about the shortcomings and inaccuracies that crept into the first edition of this book. Thanks to your attentiveness and even meticulousness, I was able to finalize and, I hope, improve a number of chapters and sections.

In addition, I want to thank the students of my seminars and employees of companies in which I have led and continue to conduct consulting projects on the implementation of regular management. Thanks to your support, and often your critical spirit, I was able to hone, test and improve the principles that need to be used to improve the effectiveness of the corporate governance system.

The pre-crisis abundance and the subsequent “temporary difficulties” in the economy revealed one hitherto deeply hidden problem: low efficiency work of companies. Managers do not yet take into account business performance at all or only monitor financial results, without paying attention to the state of the corporate governance system. In my opinion, it is appropriate to pay attention to two key parameters that determine, in addition to the natural compliance with the appropriateness of expenses, the real efficiency of the business: labor productivity and staff work content.

Labor productivity determines how much conventional work an employee will produce per unit of time. Of course, the work of a manager is more difficult to “digitize” than the work of a turner, but this, as you understand, does not make it any easier. In terms of labor productivity, Russia lags significantly behind those countries whose products we somehow encounter both domestically and internationally. foreign markets. Obviously, this state of affairs leads to higher costs and, accordingly, a lack of opportunities for real competition.

In addition to how much the employee will do, it is also obviously important what exactly he will do and when. This is what I call “work content.” It is clear that if an employee, even with high productivity, does something that does not need to be done at all, or is necessary, but not now, then this will have a more negative impact on the final efficiency than a positive one.

But, unfortunately, the increased demand for managers has caused the emergence of those whom I began to call “homunculi.” Their distinctive features are avant-garde appearance, impressive self-confidence, fluency in management terminology, readiness to solve any issue and - complete inability to put your plans into practice.

So, the absence of a “fair wind” in the form of favorable economic trends will not allow poorly organized companies to live well, and the gradual revival of markets that has begun requires real managerial professionalism from managers, otherwise everything will go to competitors. It's not good to blame everything on the government, inept subordinates and bad weather. A manager is a person responsible for everything that happens in his “jurisdiction.” And nothing, except insufficient professionalism in the field of management, prevents us from achieving the efficiency that will allow us to really compete in our market. Let's leave excuses to the weak. The strong must rule; the choice is known: you or you. And may luck and success be on the side of those who seek opportunities.

Preface
A few boring words about management efficiency

Boring, because after the public recognition of the fact that the country had entered a period of economic instability, literally everyone started talking about the effectiveness of management: first, the top officials, and then only the lazy did not notice.

Previously, this topic was not particularly in our honor for reasons approximately the same as healthy image life: no one denies its usefulness, but no one is in a hurry to follow it either.

I don’t even know who, when and why classified personnel as so-called “intangible assets”. If you count how much all types of personnel costs cost a company, the amounts come out to be quite impressive. As for labor productivity, in the world table of ranks we are in a place that even a slightly thinking jingoist should not be proud of.

Both the cost and the very possibility of transforming ideas, plans and plans into real results depend on the clarity of operational management of subordinates, and therefore on the managerial qualifications of the manager.

In an era of prosperity, no one naturally wants to bother themselves with concerns about the effectiveness of management. Everyone is, as a rule, busy with extensive development and is enjoying the fruits of the new prosperity to the fullest. As befits enlightened people, we, of course, feel a slight sense of guilt for our frivolity and promise ourselves that someday, in the future, we will definitely attend to the useful, but “tasteless” issue of efficiency. But, unfortunately, we usually stay too long in our comfort zone.

In times of economic instability, the importance of efficiency—not to be confused with effectiveness—of management increases many times over!

The approaches of most of our leaders to solving this problem are reminiscent of the thoughts of a monkey from a famous fairy tale, which could not get around to building a house for itself: in the summer it was already warm, and in the winter the wind and rain greatly interfered.

During a crisis that usually comes unnoticed, it turns out that the moment of optimal freedom of maneuver has been missed, and all resources are now spent on combating the consequences of precisely that same chronic inefficiency.

Popular wisdom teaches that such a model of behavior does not ennoble even a monkey. So, maybe it's time to start behaving like a representative of Homo sapiens? There is still no other way out, and no one but us is to blame for the fact that we had “no leisure” before. However, should we get used to overcoming difficulties created by our own hands? It seems to me that this activity, due to its popularity and tradition, is worthy of being legalized as a national sport.

And one more no less “boring” topic. During a crisis, people are always concerned about finding additional financial resources. Question: is there much use in pouring gasoline into a leaky - that is, ineffective - system? Of course, additional funds may be needed, but they will only be useful if, at the same time, someone finally gets serious about management efficiency. Otherwise, this attracted resource, which is expensive in modern times, will be consumed without much use.

If you belong to that reasonable minority of leaders who, even in well-fed times, did not forget about the basic laws, then now, in harsh times, you will have to continue this glorious path and worthy of all imitation with special zeal.

It may seem to you that I am exaggerating. Strong recommendation: soberly assess what is happening around you. Hiding your head in the sand, leaving the other part of your body outside, is unworthy of a leader. Your time has come, and a lot depends on how you play your game.

What is this book about?

About the professional exploitation of personnel and regular management as a means to ensure this beneficial process.

No, this is not a mistake. The title actually has the word "exploitation" written all over it. Of course, against the backdrop of general calls for humanization, liberalization, rejection of authoritarianism, the indispensable unity of teams, unleashing creative potential, attracting real talents and full-scale involvement of subordinates in the decision-making process, this may seem blasphemous.

Business is a one-way road. Anyone who has taken this path must understand: it won’t get any easier. Every day a manager has to solve more and more complex problems. They say that the most costly thing for us is the neglect of hackneyed truths. So here's about them.

Whatever one may say, we have capitalism in our yard with all its characteristic features. But this system does not imply equality.

Business must be profitable. Profit, as we remember from the “Capital” of the unforgettable Karl Marx, can only be extracted from surplus value. Appropriating it with the subsequent return of some part to the one who produced it is called exploitation. Do you agree? Then let’s call a spade a spade and won’t lower our eyes in embarrassment and blush with shame.

Live in modern society consists of an endless exchange of surplus values. You don't want to exploit anyone and you don't want to be exploited? Then your only choice is to live outside society.

That is why organizing professional exploitation of subordinates is the main task of a manager. Of course, I’m not talking about that exploitation, the vile essence of which we were outraged back in the days of the Soviet Union. I am more in favor of comparing a modern manager with an operating engineer who must “know and be able to.” Only in this case will he be able to provide the mode of operation of the equipment that is vitally necessary in this situation. I foresee your objection: people are not machines, they have character, desires, free will...

So I say: know and be able to. Know everything that you may have just mentally listed, and much more. And be able to use...

Tell me, does it happen that a manager is faced with the task of achieving a certain result within a specific time frame, and this is so important that, for example, issues of staff comfort recede into the background? It doesn't matter why, there can be many reasons. But it does happen? And not everything depends on the ability to warn similar situations; there are circumstances beyond his control. And this happens all the time during a crisis, doesn’t it? If you don't know how to properly mobilize your employees, then you can only rely on “collective consciousness”?

In case really professional No one particularly suffers from exploitation, but people will simply be obliged to show responsibility and discipline; you will leave them no other choice. And here efficiency will certainly follow.

The idea that a properly energized, inspired, cohesive and motivated workforce will produce the right amount of added value and share it with the manager is perhaps the most dangerous management fallacy. Motivation, of course, is needed, but it cannot be done without some coercion. The relationship between the leader and the subordinate should always be so clear that no one ever has any doubt about who is really in charge.

And now – about regular management. What else is this? There are thousands of books on management. And any leader who has studied this subject at least once probably felt like that blind sage who, by feeling, tried to determine what an elephant was.

Moreover, let me suggest that as we turned to various sources, it did not become easier, but, on the contrary, the picture seemed more and more vague, didn’t it? This may be why, including among practicing managers, it is considered in good form skeptical about management theory?

Regular management involves formalizing the work of subordinates and creating conditions for the conscious implementation of the required number of management steps.

Fact: For many managers, the management system is a kind of “black box”. The very fact of its operation is obvious, but the principles of operation, alas, are not very clear.

Consequence: Most of the time the manager is engaged own affairs, and very little attention is paid to the process of managing subordinates. The process of managing subordinates turns into a daily feat of the leader according to his own feelings. Most of the time is occupied by one’s own work, but very little attention is paid to managing subordinates.

Problem: Market pressure is growing, there is nowhere to increase the working day, and our own resources are at the limit. Employee productivity should depend primarily on the quality of your management, and not at all on the overall desire of the staff to benefit the company.

Conclusion: a company's competitiveness is increasingly determined by its level managerial the qualifications of all managers and, to a much lesser extent, their experience and enthusiasm. Of course, having these qualities is very useful, but not enough, since it cannot compensate on a regular basis for the lack of the proper level of professionalism.

Decisions are implemented precisely through management. Regular management allows not only to reduce the level of personal dependence, but also to ensure proper business efficiency.

Exactly management qualification The leader is the main factor that determines the results of activities in general and the degree of effort, in particular, of 80% of employees. About 10% will always perform poorly, and 10% will always perform well, almost regardless of the quality of management.

While working on the book, the last thing I thought about was the popularity and (or) fashionability of certain concepts. I have outlined only those principles, approaches and technologies in practical effectiveness which I have seen in 15 years of consulting companies and training executives.

In Chapter 1, “To Rule or to Be Obeyed: A Complex Path to a Simple Choice” it turns out why the term “exploitation” is the most accurate description of the leader’s activities; we will see if there is a difference between operating technological equipment and human exploitation. In addition, the reasons are analyzed why the vast majority of managers are unaware of what management is, and why we do not attach importance to managerial qualifications, but prefer to prioritize development in our industry. From this chapter, the reader will understand how conscious his choice of the “leader’s path” was, and will master the first technology: how to make the right choice.

In Chapter 2, “Mistakes for a Lifetime: The Rough Starts of Emerging Leaders.” various scenarios within which the beginning of a manager’s career unfolds, typical management mistakes and the most likely consequences for all his subsequent activities are studied. Aspiring leaders here will master the methodology of correct actions during their “start”. If we are not going to neglect one of the most important functions of a leader and plan to develop loyal professionals, then this will definitely come in handy.

In Chapter 3, “Leader and Management Theory: Does a Goat Need an Accordion?” typical options for the attitude of managers to management theory are analyzed. If we cannot structure and localize the sources of the problem, then is it possible to cope with them? No. We are doomed to fight the consequences. This chapter explores the reasons for distrust in management theory, describes the resources that most managers use to replace the lack of systemic management knowledge, finds out why “theories don’t work for us,” analyzes the consequences of neglecting management theory, determines what management theory can give and what it can give can not. Ultimately, a conclusion is drawn about how to properly combine management theory with other resources: experience, intuition and common sense. All this will allow the manager to eliminate mental contradictions and correctly use that powerful resource for increasing the efficiency of managing subordinates, which is inherent in management theory.

In Chapter 4 “On the character of a successful leader: are there “ideal leaders”” the ideal character traits of a “real leader” are analyzed, which significantly confuse practicing managers. It examines various approaches to character typification, provides recommendations on how to choose between an innovator and an administrator, and determines which character traits are key for an effective leader. These conclusions help get rid of a number of illusions and enable a manager to correctly assess not only his own managerial potential, but also the potential of colleagues and subordinates. But most importantly, this chapter will help the manager master a real and accessible technology for developing and eliminating certain traits of his own character. Of course, unless it turns out that he is ideal.

In Chapter 5 “The Leader and the “Way of the Warrior”: What Hinders the Development of Our Management Skills” the reasons that initially hinder the development of managerial qualifications of a manager are analyzed, as well as obstacles that can hinder the development of an experienced manager, and their possible consequences. The leader will learn to overcome obstacles, identify learning phases and act correctly at each of them. You will master a self-development technology that, on the one hand, ensures real efficiency, and on the other hand, allows you to do it with pleasure, without turning life into a continuous feat.

In Chapter 6 “How much does Monomakh’s hat weigh: power as the basis effective management where does it come from and how to use it" analyzes why managers, as a rule, have very little idea of what power is, how to use it, and even mistakenly believe that they acquire it along with their position. In this chapter, the leader will have to study the basic purpose of power, the rules for using power in managing subordinates, its nature, functions, signs of strong and weak power, the problem of self-seizure of powers and the sources of the formation of strong and legitimate power of the leader. As a result, he will master the technology of adjusting and customizing the “field” of power in accordance with current management tasks.

In Chapter 7 "Regular Management and Other Operating Systems: How to Choose the Best" the basic principles of regular management, the history of its development, as well as the key elements of the formation of the main “operating systems” on which the corporate governance system can be based are explored. It analyzes the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of these systems, the prevailing types of subordinates, the applicability of the systems in various market situations, the prospects for using these systems during the economic crisis and the possibility of combining various systems within one company. The manager will master the principles and technologies of correct “adjustment” of regular management in conditions of an economic crisis or in accordance with other external factors.

In Chapter 8 “Myths and Reefs” modern management: if you decide to acquire the “most modern” arsenal of fashionable management techniques” We'll take a closer look at what is often bought and sold instead of basic management techniques, and find out why managers are so eager to buy "magic wands." This chapter analyzes the reason for the main attractiveness of various management myths for practicing managers and the consequences of untimely attempts to disrupt the correct sequence of evolutionary development of the corporate governance system through the most modern management “equipment”. In addition, the main reasons for the unpopularity of regular management in the post-Soviet space are identified. As a result, the manager comes to a clear understanding of what may prevent him from implementing the most effective methodology for managing subordinates, as well as the correct sequence of development of the corporate governance system.

In Chapter 9, “Why the Top Can’t: What Prevents Leaders from Managing Subordinates” one of the main reasons for low management efficiency is analyzed and it is found out why managers devote much less effort and time to managing subordinates than required, despite the fact that they themselves are overwhelmed with work and the workload of subordinates is insufficient. The chapter identifies and describes typical key obstacles that prevent managers from managing. Ignorance of these “interferences” and, accordingly, the inability to conduct self-diagnosis leads to the fact that all managers find themselves in one way or another dissatisfied with the work of their subordinates, onto whom they try to transfer responsibility for their managerial mistakes. As a result, the manager gets the opportunity to identify his individual set of obstacles and develop a mechanism of action to correct the situation and improve the efficiency of managing subordinates.

In Chapter 10, “The Responsibilities of a Leader: Everything is Clear to Everyone, But Nobody Really Knows Anything” a pattern that is strange at first glance is being explored: if an experienced manager is asked to list his responsibilities in the field of managing subordinates, then he most likely will not be able to name them or will give them out without any logical structure. This chapter analyzes the problems that hinder effective management when there is an unclear understanding of managerial responsibilities. The manager has the opportunity to master several approaches to structuring his managerial responsibilities, as well as systematize their content and typical mistakes when performing them.

In Chapter 11 “Leader’s competencies: what a professional should be able to do” The contents of three “toolboxes” of a professional leader are examined. Here we analyze the general purpose of each set of competencies and the scope of application of each of them in the practice of managing subordinates. Thanks to this, the manager masters the key principles of optimal combination of management competencies for the best performance of his duties.

In Chapter 12 “Why the lower classes don’t want to: what influences the attitude of subordinates to work” the second main reason for low management efficiency is analyzed. Here we examine the basic factors that influence the insufficiently responsible attitude of subordinates to work, as well as those prerequisites that form the discrepancy in expectations of results and assessment of contribution to work between managers and subordinates. The reasons why people are often not attracted to the idea of working better for better rewards, how a feeling of satiation with the achieved result arises, and why calls from managers to make additional efforts are not properly reflected in the actions of subordinates are explored. The main thing is that the leader is now able to get rid of many illusions and adjust his ideas regarding possible methods of influencing the situation.

In Chapter 13 “How to influence the diligence of subordinates: a vector diagram of regular management” an analysis of the possible positions of subordinates in relation to the management system is carried out and the key behavioral features that are demonstrated in each of the selected positions are determined. In this chapter key principles are formulated for the manager to use managerial competencies to influence changes in the positions of subordinates, examples of the consequences of violating the principles of forming a correct vector diagram are studied, and recommendations are mastered for the correct combination of three “vectors” of influence: interest, coercion and support in order to ensure maximum work efficiency.

In Chapter 14 “Between an Angel and a Devil: How to Build Relationships with Subordinates” the answer is given to the question: why are most managers “seriously” concerned about the problem of forming the right relationships with subordinates? How useful are good team relationships for effective management? What if the manager and subordinate are friends? Is it possible to maintain camaraderie outside of work and how can you prevent possible problems? The chapter examines whether it is possible and necessary to have informants among subordinates, as well as how to properly consult with subordinates when making decisions. The manager is given recommendations on how to finally get rid of many long-standing problems and acquire a reliable method for forming the right system of relations with subordinates.

In Chapter 15, "Where to Start" new life: about the benefits of magical paradigms" the advantages of correcting and forming paradigms of thinking of subordinates are analyzed before focusing on managing individual actions. Here we examine the optimal set of paradigms, the observance of which by subordinates ensures high predictability of their behavior and significantly reduces the managerial burden on the manager. Supervisor receives a detailed description of these paradigms, examples of correct – according to the paradigms – actions of subordinates in various situations and recommendations for the implementation of paradigms in management practice.

At first she intrigued me greatly. She promised to answer questions that were very important to me. After 50 pages, I was disappointed that the book did not or did not fully address the answers to these questions. So I don't recommend reading it.

But she really made me think for myself, compare different views, and gave me many ideas. It often happens that you read a book, and suddenly you understand what was written in another book that you read 2 years ago.

This is one big advertisement for Alexander Friedman’s trainings. There are a lot of very beautiful and intelligent discussions about the benefits of management theory, the need to constantly learn, and the fact that with due diligence and openness to new things, the mastery of management is available to everyone. But the theory itself is not revealed! It is written only about how good it is, and that every self-respecting leader is obliged to learn. There is constant “work with the objections” of the reader. Sad and painful pictures of failure to properly study management theory are constantly being painted. There is pressure on all pain points and calluses typical leader. And across the page, as if in passing, but with enviable persistence, it is mentioned that the author conducts trainings.

True, they say that his training is really good.

It's like an advertising YouTube channel for a company that performs repair or construction works. We need to do something to attract attention by allegedly telling useful information, but at the same time, you need to tell those things so as not to give anything to your competitors, and thirdly, you need to make sure that after watching all the videos, the client still couldn’t do this job without you!

After watching at least 100 videos from such a channel, you will understand this:
"I learned a lot of interesting little tricks of building a cottage. But I still have no idea how to build it myself!!! Moreover, my uncertainty has only increased: now I see how many different little things there are where you can make a mistake! "I don't know how many of them yet!!! Looks like these guys (the authors of the channel) know how to build a cottage, since they talk so much about it! And how many more are kept silent!!! I'll place an order with them!"

I liked the description of how the same manifestations can be assessed differently depending on whether success is achieved:

A lot has been said about the role of personality in history. But it seems to me that the assessment of certain qualities of this very person significantly depends on the mood of the audience at the current moment or on the obvious results. So, at the start, when certifying a future candidate, when everyone is full of hope or when the newly appointed CEO leads the company to rapid success, his qualities such as toughness, determination and willingness to take risks are presented as positive and worthy of all imitation.

Small imperfections, if not hushed up, are then presented as reserves for growth or as circumstances not yet covered by the beneficial influence of the newly-minted leader. If the company has not demonstrated radical success, then the same character traits are already presented as obvious reasons for the collapse: they say, the decisions were too risky, and it was in vain that the resignation of the members of the old team was given, and the newly-minted leader alienated people with his harshness.

And if a decision is made to replace a player on the field, it often turns out that all the results previously noted as positive were achieved not at all thanks to, but, on the contrary, despite the activities of the disgraced leader, and even by completely different people.

I liked the typification of control systems:

Operating system 1. “Directive management”

Definition: “I am the boss, you are a fool!”
Subordinates must do what and as the leader determines. The blame for the lack of results does not fall on the subordinate, unless he deviated one iota from the received order.

The basis for success: unquestioning execution of the manager’s orders, the exclusion of all types of resistance from subordinates, the absence of prerequisites and opportunities for failure to fulfill any of the parameters of work assignments.

Advantages: speed of decision-making due to centralization, high controllability, good discipline, inviolability of the manager’s authority.

Disadvantages: a decrease in the speed of decision-making as the structure grows, a high probability of fatal management errors, a low degree of use of human potential, the need for favorable external conditions.

Limitations: complete dependence on the innate dictatorial talent of the leader, a decrease in controllability in accordance with the “square of the distance” from the dictator and an increase in the scale of the business, and associated limited opportunities for development of the structure.

The predominant types of subordinates: psychologically dependent, non-competitive in the labor market, unprofessional. If the dictator is a Great Master, then to this list are added those pragmatists who are ready to learn from him, albeit at the cost of humiliation, perceiving this as a challenge and useful experience for subsequent career growth or organization own business.

Operating system 2. “Manipulation management” (at JSC NIPOM - this)

Definition: “What are you doing, my dear?!” Subordinates are always to blame for something. If they started doing it without a command, they were doing it without permission. We didn’t start due to lack of initiative. We got the result - why is it so small? They didn’t receive it - why, when all the resources were provided to them? The instructions are deliberately vague. One job can be entrusted to different performers without indicating their mutual powers and without informing them at all about the fact of parallel work. To a direct question they can answer: “Think for yourself, what are you paid for?”

The basis of success: excess profits through the use of “holes” in laws and regulations, violations of all types of internal and external obligations, methods of harsh/deceptive exploitation of personnel.

Advantages: high, albeit short-term, return on human potential, high sustainability due to the centralization of all types of powers, high tempo growth during periods of instability, the ability to “re-deal the deck” or “change the game table” in a timely manner, willingness to take risks, high (due to the willingness to ignore obligations) speed of corporate transformations.

Disadvantages: bad reputation, frequent changes of a significant part of the staff, weak resistance to tough and systemic competition, high dependence on favorable external conditions, the need for constant struggle with those of the subordinates who strive to deceive the structure itself, gaining their own bit of happiness.

Limitations: complete dependence on the level of the manager’s innate puppeteering talent, reduced controllability in accordance with the “square of the distance” from the puppeteer and the growth of the business scale, associated limited opportunities for the development of the structure.

The predominant types of subordinates: psychologically dependent, non-competitive in the labor market, unprofessional. Professional, but at the same time trusting, naive and good-natured, who believe in promises and manage to raise the structure well until the moment of complete disappointment and final insight. Cynics, who every day are given the opportunity to clearly see the correctness of their own position in life.

Operating system 3. “Improvisational management” (in Sports Attractions LLC - this)

Definition: “Take more, throw further!” Subordinates are expected to be quick-witted, proactive, enterprising, quick, and preferably completely synchronized in their thinking with their leader. It is necessary to guess what, when and how to do, since there is no systematic way of setting tasks. Erroneous but quick actions are rarely punished; everything is attributed to circumstances. Results are generously rewarded. People get fired for persistent attempts to clarify the parameters of a work assignment, which is often mistaken for stupidity.

The basis for success: anticipating market needs, identifying unoccupied and potentially attractive business segments, flexibility in response.

Advantages: high speed decision-making, risk-taking, staff involvement and cohesion, good use of human potential, readiness to change activities, rapid change of work technologies, creative atmosphere.

Disadvantages: poor controllability, chaotic execution of work, lack of systematic processes, the predominance of strategy over tactics and the generation of new ideas over the optimization of old ones, a tendency to test ideas by action to the detriment of preliminary analysis, high cost of business processes, a tendency to eliminate problems that have arisen to the detriment of their prevention .

Limitations: low stability as the scale of business grows and/or competition becomes tougher/systematized, as well as demand decreases. The need for opportunities for extensive growth to cover the high costs of internal processes.

Predominant types of subordinates: enthusiasts, jack-of-all-trades, charismatics, chameleons/deceivers.

Definition: “Everything that is done is written down, everything that is written down is done.” Setting tasks, final and intermediate results, content of work and methods of their execution, points and forms of control/coordination, types and reasons for rewards/punishments are formalized, implemented and sold to subordinates.

The basis for success: a uniform understanding of expected results and methods for achieving them, early and precise organization of necessary actions with optimal control and timely correction of the implementation process.

Advantages: high return on human potential, stability in the short and long term, low dependence on favorable external conditions, the possibility of long-term planning of all types of resources, low dependence on personnel due to reliance on work technology, and not on the abilities of employees.

Disadvantages: high cost of the structure, less (compared to other systems) flexibility and speed of response, complexity of the corporate governance system, low speed of implementation of corporate transformations, unwillingness to take risks and act in conditions of high uncertainty.

Limitations: the need for universal adherence to the same paradigms, regardless of hierarchy. This feature in to a greater extent irritates those managers who perceive their position as a worthy reward for the successes achieved and believe that now they can relax.

Predominant types of subordinates: professionals competitive in the labor market who are interested in continuing their career and/or self-development.

Examples:

Imagine that you purchased the most modern echo sounder and solemnly dragged it onto your oared galley. You can easily foresee that you will encounter a number of purely technological problems. On the one hand, this does not refute the fundamental usefulness of the device, on the other hand, it does not allow us to derive any benefit from it in the realistically predictable future. Most likely, you will solemnly install this device in a place of honor, oblige your subordinates to wipe the dust off it, and proudly show it to your guests.

That is, it all comes down to: Standardize first, optimize later!

Conclusion:

I thought I had finally found the one best book in my life, but no. The book is intriguing, but does not give the full picture. So, I feel, I will have to take the advice of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu: “If you haven’t found a book that you would like to read, then write it yourself.”

Ratings:

Improvement of general horizons: 4/5

Practical use: 2/5

Drive while reading: 3/5

CEO

to whom: business owners, management, heads of departments

Briefly about the author and the book

Alexander Fridman is a well-known consultant in the field strategic development and increasing the efficiency of a commercial company. Owner of his own business since 1988.

The book “You or you. Professional Exploitation of Subordinates" is a fundamental work on how to put things in order in your organization. There are not only ready-made recipes, but also technologies.

If the manager owns the technology, he will independently develop his own recipes in a specific situation. This is a very important skill, because there are a finite number of ready-made recipes, and an infinite number of management situations.

The inattention of the manager leads to a lack of controllability in the organization

The consequences of a manager’s inattention to violations of established rules by his subordinates will not be long in coming. Here they are:

Subordinates constantly probe the field of power surrounding them in order to check: maybe it is not necessary to follow this or that rule? What happens if you break it a little? As if as a joke? What if on Friday morning or Wednesday afternoon?
If the management system does not properly respond to a violation of a rule, then this information is diligently recorded by the subordinate.
As the gaps discovered in the field of power grow, the negligence of subordinates increases. The more rules you can break, the less you want to follow the rest.
If the management system cannot cope with violations of its own rules, then this clearly demonstrates to all participants not only the weakness of power, but also the fact that rules can be broken in principle.
If you can break the rules, then why do you need to follow agreements, try, make efforts? Why is it necessary to complete the task according to all parameters and in due time? Why do you need to do this task at all? Why bother to remember any details?
Subordinates begin to divide rules into mandatory and optional, guided by their personal motives.
The structure becomes poorly managed, and a large management gap appears.

So what to do with all this? If you want to find the answer, read the book by Alexander Friedman. Improve your leadership and management skills. Everyone benefits from this: you, the business and the hard workers among your employees.