Vonz90 wrote:If you want to take it as a negative, then you don't understand it.
There are two parts of it, get people in jobs that you can trust to do a job without micromanaging them, and then give them the goals and let them do it.
What is not to like (unless you a tasked based kind of guy, which is fine, but limiting.)
It rang hollow based on past observation in the workplace. I've seen too many leaders assign a vague task and then blow up when they're asked for clarification. The end result is that people try to "show initiative" by not seeking clarification, and then the leader is once again left dumbfounded and angry that they didn't get exactly what they wanted. They don't learn, and in their mind it's because they're
the ones dealing with hapless idiots who can't or won't learn, the buffoons that can only be motivated by pitching a fit. Meanwhile, other people in their position get efficient work out of the same employees without behaving as though asking about the task at hand is a personal affront.
Taking the encyclopedia scenario, for example, I find it more likely to play out more like this:
"Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of some Renaissance fellow. His name starts with C-O.” And because the clerk has worked with you for fifteen minutes, he knows he had better quietly say, “Yes, sir,” and go do the task. Then, of course, the blithering idiot comes back to you with a memorandum about the life of Copernicus, not Correggio like you clearly wanted. On top of that, he's submitted it in the standard company format, not the format you personally prefer. Good help is impossible to find.
Maybe I've just had exceptionally bad luck with employers and Hubbard had exceptionally bad luck with employees. I would certainly agree that employees that show initiative and don't need to be micromanaged are good (required, even), but I strongly disagree with the notion that they're that
hard to find, or nigh-impossible to cultivate. I certainly didn't get anything about allowing employees to accomplish set goals from the essay, since it seems fully dedicated to whining about how he needs to hire somebody to club and kick employees to make them useful.
Although, there is something personally amusing about this line:
My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as well as when he is home.
...because I've had a job where my supervisor and I had to devise ways to get out of the office (or get the boss out of the office) just to accomplish anything! That boss didn't like questions either, but he certainly loved to re-task you when you were in full momentum on something else. Squadron leadership thought the office was full of goldbrickers and it seemed we were always in the hot seat, until the boss went on leave. Then they saw just how much the two of us could get done on our own and they loved us. Eventually said boss PCS'd and we kept everything running smoothly without him. Sometimes I miss that facility job, but it was only supposed to be temporary from the beginning, and it was back to the line.