Last week, a former colleague and I had a casual chitchat. While we’d never worked together, we had name familiarity. I was shocked to hear his account of a former manager who I’d reported to for a few years.
While the manager abided common courtesies, I found her brash, needlessly critical of my work, and oblivious to my personal challenges—carrying for a husband with rapidly increasing dementia.
I knew about her unruly sons, frequent illnesses, and frustration with certain employees, which I was often assigned to mentor. While my clients were pleased with my work and willingness to take on ambiguous, poorly defined projects, my manager kept pushing me to act more like an advisory consultant than a worker bee, doing everything from the nitty-gritty to strategic initiatives.
It was confusing, given the younger men on her team routinely delegated tasks, which were beneath their perceived proficiencies, and often produced subpar work, requiring me to step in and help at the eleventh hour.
Being imposter syndrome is central to my psyche, I took her critiques to heart. Yesterday, however, hearing my ex-coworker share they’d been labeled ineffectual by the same manager, opened a Pandora’s box I’d previously slammed shut.
My ex-associate wasn’t inept. He simply needed time to ramp up on the roles he was assigned.
Business battle cries are often tied to improved performance and efficiency. But people aren’t microchips that can double capacity, capabilities, and performance every few years.
The system that people work in and the interaction with people may account for 90 or 95 percent of performance.” W. Edwards Deming, business theorist
Quite a few years ago, I became a marketing department of one, which formerly was four. My manager said if I didn’t run around like a whirling dervish, I could accomplish a lot more.
No. One person can’t possibly do the work of four, especially if the work is developing and executing marketing campaigns for eight product lines!
More recently, I was placed on a project for a month. At the start of week two, I was asked how AI agents could be applied to improve workflow efficiency. I could barely figure out what I was supposed to do, toggling between spreadsheets, responding to requests, posting updates, and interfacing with stakeholders.
Just as I was beginning to get the hang of the role, the employee I was covering for returned. While I maintained the momentum of projects and didn’t “drop the ball,” I wasn’t seen as a hero because I failed to determine how to take the role to the next level.
Job performance continues to be esoteric. Should a surgeon, psychologist, caregiver, or teacher be expected to steadfast increase productivity if the outcome could be detrimental? Yes, processes could be streamlined, manual tasks automated, and redundancies eliminated.
Even so, the expectation, is to “work smarter, not faster,” which doesn’t necessarily translate to real-world circumstances. Smarter often means ignoring “lower” value tasks in favor of those deemed more monumental. It’s akin to pulling out the lowest blocks from a Jenga stack. Eventually, everything will tumble.
Websites and resource libraries aren’t updated, new features aren’t thoroughly tested, equipment is neglected, IT overlooks issues, content isn’t proofread, and repetitive tasks are offloaded until underlings quit.
“Work hard but work smart. Always. Every day. Nothing is handed to you and nothing is easy. You’re not owned anything. No job or task is too small or beneath you. If you want to get ahead, volunteer to do the things no one else wants to do and do it better. Be a sponge. Be open and learn.” Bobbi Brown, entrepreneur and makeup artist
I have shelves of books. Most of which I’ve never read, but look impressive on Zoom and Team calls. One book I’ve thumbed through multiple times is “Return to Civility” by John Sweeny. Consideration #56 is “Accept the mistakes of others graciously, knowing you make mistakes too.”
It seems like a simple request. Too often, however, minor mistakes or the 5% that’s done incorrectly or inadequately cancel out the 95% that’s hunky dory. It’s like chastising a barista who goofs up two drinks, during a busy, 8-hour shift.
According to the Pareto Principle, roughly 80% of results come from 20% of effort. Yet, performance reviews often come down to the mistakes or tasks, which aren’t considered up to snuff.
Here’s where it gets confusing.
If you’re supposed to focus on the most valuable and strategic tasks—the 20%—then the probability for slipups dramatically increases. Going back to the barista example, if the most valuable task is speedily and accurately serving customers, then taking the time to backflush an espresso machine, clean the coffee bean hopper, and wipe the steam wand might be viewed as lower value tasks, impacting the speed of delivery. However, these tasks are essential for ensuring the cleanliness and taste of the final product.
Consider Thomas Edison. Over the course of his career, he received 1,093 patents, ushering in the modern age of electricity by rolling up his sleeves and doing the tedious, hands-on work of experimentation. For instance, Edison and his team tested 1,600 to 1,700 raw fibers and over 3,000 different theories before determining carbonized bamboo was the ideal filament for a light bulb.
Can you imagine if Edison had a manager who asked him to write a personal improvement plan (PIP) after a few months because he hadn’t found a suitable filament.
Leave a Reply