This is my summary of "High output management" written by Andrew Grove (Former chairman and CEO of Intel).
The key to optimizing all types of productive work is to find the
most cost-effectiveway to deploy your resources.
scheduleddelivery time, at an
acceptablequality level, and at the
Unless you are prepared to act on what your leading indicators are telling you, all you will get from monitoring them is anxiety.
counter-effectare measured. E.g. monitoring both inventory levels and the incidence of shortages.
The art of management lies in the capacity to select from the many activities of seemingly comparable significance the one or two or three that provide leverage well beyond the others and concentrate on them.
mediumand should not be regarded as part of a manager’s activity.
A meeting called to make a specific decision is hard to keep moving if more than six or seven people attend. Eight people should be the absolute cutoff. Decision-making is not a spectator sport, because onlookers get in the way of what needs to be done.
A journalist puzzled by our management style once asked me, "Mr. Grove, isn't your company's emphasis on visible signs of egalitarianism such as informal dress, partitions instead of offices... just so much affectation?" My answer was that this is not an affectation, but a matter of survival. In our business, we have to mix knowledge-power people with position-power people daily, and together they make decisions that could affect us for years to come.
I have seen far too many people who upon recognizing today’s gap try very hard to determine what decision has to be made to close it. But today’s gap represents a failure of planning sometime in the past. By analogy, forcing ourselves to concentrate on the decisions needed to fix today’s problem is like scurrying after our car has already run out of gas.
All large organizations with a common business purpose end up in a hybrid organizational form.
A dual reporting system makes a manager's life ambiguous, and most people don't like ambiguity. Nevertheless, the system is needed to make hybrid organizations work, and while people will strive to find something simpler, the reality is that it doesn't exist. A strictly functional organization, which is clear conceptually, tends to remove engineering and manufacturing (or the equivalent groups in your firm) from the marketplace, leaving them with no idea of what the customers want. A highly mission-oriented organization, in turn, may have definite crisp reporting relationships and clear and unambiguous objectives at all times. However, the fragmented state of affairs that results causes inefficiency and poor overall performance.
When the environment changes more rapidly than one can change rules, or when a set of circumstances is ambiguous and unclear that a contract between the parties that attempted to cover all possibilities would be prohibitively complicated, we need another mode of control, which is based on cultural values. Its most important characteristic is that the interest of the larger group to which an individual belongs takes precedence over the interest of the individual himself.
At the upper level of the need hierarchy, when one is self-actualized, money in itself is no longer a source of motivation but rather a measure of achievement.
If the person’s life depended on doing the work, could he do it?
The age-old question of whether friendship between supervisor and subordinate is a good thing […] Everyone must decide for himself what is professional and appropriate here. A test might be to imagine yourself delivering a tough performance review to your friend. Do you cringe at the thought? If so, don't make friends at work. If your stomach remains unaffected, you are likely to be someone whose personal relationships will strengthen work relationships.
An associate of mine who had always done an outstanding job hired a junior person to handle some old tasks, while he himself took on some new ones. The subordinate did poor work. My associate's reaction: "He has to make his own mistakes. That's how he learns!" The problem with this is that the subordinate's tuition is paid by his customers. And that is absolutely wrong.
In the end, careful interviewing doesn’t guarantee you anything, it merely increases your odds of getting lucky.
Merit-based compensation simply cannot work unless we understand that if someone is going to be first, somebody else has to be last.
If you accept that training, along with motivation, is the way to improve the performance of your subordinates, that what you teach must be closely tied to what you practice, and that training needs to be a continuing process rather than a one-time event, it is clear that the
whoof the training is
you, the manager.