• BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Here’s my view as an executive, if my folks regularly add hours to their day/week to get their job done they’re not good at their job. If they’re good at their job they know how to prioritize and they also know how to optimize and automate constantly so they can do more with less. They also do their form of zero base reporting or zero base budgeting constantly to get rid of what was once important that no longer is.

    To be fair in senior leadership a 40 hour week probably isn’t going to happen but you should swing between 55 hours and 30 hours depending on the week and average it to the mid to high 40s.

    I suspect this isn’t going to be a popular post, and I accept your down votes but would also like to hear your contrary view along with it if you don’t mind.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d say there’s also something to be said about an overbearing workload. If everyone is constantly struggling to get things done in time then more staff could be needed. But yeah, if it’s the same ones over and over and only them, then investigating why makes sense.

      • BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        If the majority of the people the majority of the time have the same result then it’s the system not the people.

        So yeah it could be a systemic issue, it’s my job to prevent or correct that.

      • BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        Agreed! Luckily they’re fairly easy to replace as long as you don’t build systems that won’t allow them to fail.

        A decade or more before COVID my favorite tool was to let everyone work from home. Those that sucked at their job wouldn’t get anything done. HR would just ask we bring them all in and I’d refuse. If they can’t be trusted to work without supervision they can’t be trusted to work with it.

        Now keep in mind we have to be reasonable people and not driving our people beyond reasonableness.

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Now keep in mind we have to be reasonable people and not driving our people beyond reasonableness.

          Ditch your suite, and go into executive exclusive consultancy.

          Just paraphrase the quoted section for each individual thick skull, and maybe teach them that softening the skin around your eyes and giving the beleaguered high performers bringing feedback a knowing look doesn’t violate business needs.

          Then you won’t have to worry about posts starting with “as an executive” going wrong.

          Well, no not really, but I know a board that needs to internalize that sentiment.

          • BallShapedMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m not sure why you got a down vote for saying someone should help change the whole system but here is an up vote to help fix it.

            And bottom line that won’t work. It won’t because American organizations are dictatorships and dictatorships always end up that way. I do what I can to fight it but I know my efforts have limited impact outside of my departments.

            For some “light” reading, try The Doctors Handbook and Cultish. Both amazing books that do a great job outlining why the systems work the way they do and changing the system is what’s needed to change the default output.

            Germany to an extent and some Nordic countries do a good job of this on paper. I can’t say I’ve read enough to speak intelligently about their solutions though.