vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Revealing and insightful article. I saw my Father work as a senior manager in the News  industry where the top brass had no experience in the core of the business and saw the friction it caused with him and other Journalists.   As an MBA student it's important for me to remember to put myself in other's shoes. Assuming I ever work in a business where management doesn't have the same core background as the operational employees.
"Better financial analyst on paper or to improve your own ability?  In my opinion what makes a good analyst is a thorough understanding of macro and financial statements, intellectual curiosity and ability to think independently.  To be able to look at a dataset and come to your own conclusions without outside bias.  To not just want to learn ""how"" but also why.  You can't improve if you don't question the status quo.  Everyone lists Excel as a skill on their resume but it is amazing how few people really know it.  More employable, what I would want to see is experience in Bloomberg, Factset and Thomson Reuters.  And how you have utilized the tools.  I want to see that you can think independently.  Show me you are capable of completing a task just by being given the starting point and the ending point without needed to be told every step in between.  As I said previously, everyone claims to be Excel experts, show me that you really do have advanced knowledge."
"Managers aren't receiving pension plans? They do nothing on their own? I agree there needs to be strong leadership and direction, and most people specialize in 1 thing while others specialize in coordinating teams with different skill sets, but the workers aren't just pieces in an intricate assembly line. If you take this corporate philosophy obsessed with short term gains you get jaded workers and create a similar culture. ""*Corporate:* I'll pay the least I can for the best I can get AND I'll fire them on the spot the second I find someone better. *Worker:* I'll work the least I can for as much as I can get AND I'll be on the lookout for better opportunities constantly"". You need to strike a balance of respect somewhere. These are interdependent processes, not a hierarchy of dependent sheep vs corporate overlords."
"I'm a SVP at a wealth management firm - I pay my admins extremely well (between $90k and $100k base + benefits + bonuses) and I expect a lot in return. Certain traits that I find critical include (but are not limited to):  -punctuality -organizational abilities  -time management  -multitasking -willingness to learn -ability to take action without explicit directions in some situations  -PRIVACY (with clients, internally, etc...) -gregariousness  -""thick skin"" (sometimes people say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment) -written and oral communication skills -strong work ethic -too many others to list  For example, I have 2 admins in their late 50s and are essentially superannuated employees - 1 of them resents the fact that I'm 37, and believes since she has been here longer than me she doesn't have to follow my directions. The other has never mentioned anything about age, etc...when it was announced that I would assume the role of CEO in the next 2-3 years, who do you think got nervous? My point is, be professional and treat everyone with respect. I would have to imagine it's difficult to climb the corporate ladder while being insubordinate or condescending.   When I talk to prospective clients (or current clients) I refer to them as ""team members"" and tell people that THEY are the ones that make everything happen. Neither one of them came from a financial background, but ""hard work respects hard work"".   If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.   Good luck!"
You can still be nice, yet command authority. In fact, being a D-bag boss will often negatively affect the company's culture, which is very important. If you make a brash change people will notice and give you less respect. Just be straight with what needs to get done, and why. But at the same time, don't be afraid to kick ass if it's need.
Excellent points, especially what you say about why managers like certain people and also how productivity is measured. I suspect many HR systems exist that aim to eliminate this subjectivity in terms of assessing employee performance and post-assessment, dole out rewards (pay, bonus, etc.) as objectively as possible...but of course these systems are far from perfect.
"Thats easy:  My direct manager, the Director of IT,  1. Does not micromanage. Meaning he treats me like an adult who knows how to get things done. I never ever feel bad about watching cat videos, browsing reddit, or facebook while at work. He lets me do my thing and in return i actually get things done because i dont feel his hot breath on my neck 2. He totally promotes an atmosphere of open door. I know i can walk up to him and tell him i have a problem with him or another It person just as much as anyone else. If i think he made a bad call on something or something doesnt feel right about policy, equipment, etc he is really understanding and objective 3. He buys everyone beer all the time.  the CEO (who is flipping awesome let me tell you)  1. She has made it her literal (and i mean literal) #1 goal to make our workplace and our employees happy. not just satisfied, but really really truely happy to come to work. I have heard myself more than once mentally saying ""yes, i get to go to work today"". 2. our core values are foster happiness, Practive wowism, create community, innovate, and growth. She takes every one of them seriously and will bend over backwards to make sure all of them happen. 3. we have a prepaid amazon account that anyone can access with no restrictions specifically for sending clients gift whenever we feel like it. I dont get to do this often as i only work internally, but our receptionists regularly send gifts to people for no reason other than it would make the client happy.  4. our bonuses and incentives kind of kick ass. If we make a certain number of cennections (meaning the receptionists do certain things that earn them points...kinda like the monopoly game at mcdonalds) if we reach certain goals we usually get certain things like a schmorgas board of breakfast cereal and cartoons in the breakroom, or an in house sushi go round, or an ice cream party or a trip to hawaii (we have gotten all of those by the way). 5. when we hire employees we like to hire people who represent the culture that we have. We hire based more on attitude than actual skill (although that factors in too, obviously) so ALL the people I work with are happy, and love to make other people happy."
"I don't know if it counts as a formal answer, but Dale Carnegie has  always preached that income is related to how well you treat and get  along with other people. His observation is that the highest paid  people are those with the best people skills, because the ability to  manage other people has higher value than singular ability.  Conversely, people making minimum wage often work ""harder"" than people  making more money.  The old saw about ""work smart, not hard"" is a bit trite. In many  fields, efficiency is valued over ""hard work""."
What I do in those cases - assuming I like the job - is ask for a review in 3-months. They usually take this to mean I want a raise-review and give me a raise. What I really want to know is how I'm doing. Some managers will only give feedback in a review instead of every day.
Playing devil's advocate here:  Let's say you pull this off as a hired manager with no/little salary but with a share in profits. You really put in a lot of work and get the place going. What is going to stop them to kick you out after a season and take it over again themselves benefitting from your effort?
I am not joking one bit. If their job performance is suffering due to their own personal lack of self-respect then I would fire their ass and hire someone willing to do a good job. I've worked as a manager at a massive chain retail store. We had all different kinds of employees. Some were good and some were bad. The good and bad had no correlation to their pay (they all got paid like shit) or how long they had been working there.
I'd like to learn more about this study. The article says they surveyed 500 managers. This is theoretically a large enough sample to make inferences from, but I'd like to know:  1. Why a larger sample wasn't used 2. The distribution of different copmanies/industries these managers worked in 3. The geographical spread of these managers.  My suspicion is that this study is actually heavily biased by the corporate culture of a small group of companies or geographic region. How do I know these managers didn't all come from a single corporation with a toxic work culture in a bigoted town?
"I've found that the most effective way to get things done is to communicate directly in person, or over the phone if the former is not possible, then to follow up with an immediate email - ""per our conversation, etc.""  This allows the natural personable conversations to occur, connecting you with you team members and direct reports, while also holding everyone accountable in writing.  Accountability isn't about being able to say ""I told you so!"" nor is it about waiting for an opportunity to make someone look bad. Accountability is about ensuring that no one falls behind or lets the team down in the first place through preventative measures.  This comes back full circle to my point on personable communication; the most effective method of management in my experience is simply leading by example. When you lead by example you never need to threaten employees with discipline or ""accountability;"" you simply do what you do and if people respect you for the way you work, they will look up to you as a role model. Your team members will do everything they can to support the team's objectives on their own accord.  Source: I learned this through a former manager. He motivated me to be more committed to the team's objectives and now I get to pay that forward to my direct reports.  Edit: typos, on mobile."
Retail jobs are not easy to get, *especially* if you're skilled (and advertise that fact). Retail managers don't want to hire someone that's overqualified as they know that person will continue to look for something else and will leave the moment they find something more on their level. They also don't want someone that will threaten their authority. All they want is someone that will show up on time and not cause problems.
Further it is known, that the top performers are often not good team players. For many jobs they are simply to ambitious to create a stable work environment with their colleagues, if those are as well very ambitious. For a good team you have one top performer who is supported by more rather average team members.
Just like everyone should be a waiter for 6 months, I feel like everyone should be a manager too. Three women in their mid-20s will always explode into a cloud of drama. Oppositely, 3-4 middle aged men do the exact same fucking thing.  People are just clicky and gossipy and shitheads. It definitely seems like girls in their mid twenties are the worst, while guys at 40ish are also the worst.
"I once was praised by a manager during my review for using the word  ""proactive"" on my resume. That was back in the nineties. How little has changed.   This is the same manager who admitted to me and half a dozen other employees under his wing that the only reason he was a manager was because of his ass-kissing ability. And it didn't bother him one bit. We were dumbstruck.  So, ridiculous as these cliches may seem to people who like to make sense, in the business world it holds some truth."
There's no downplaying the importance of something as simple as that.  But I think that Future covers it:  &gt; Employees care about your business… but only when you prove you care about them first.  Managers have the most immediate influence over the comfort of their employees while on the job. Comfortable office furniture, equipment that doesn't suck, amenities to make being at work more of a pleasure - all means of showing employees they're treated as valuable professionals.
"I worked for a few large corporations in highschool and college.  Mainly retail.  My position being on the low end of the totem pole.  At this level, there is a lot of pump-up-the-drone bs that's force fed down your throat.  After college, I've worked for three companies.  One privately owned and two publicly traded companies.  The private business was one of the worst offenders I've ever seen with the BS ""be a team player"" mentality, regardless of your level.  The public companies definitely push the ""team player"" mentality toward the lowest skilled, most easily replaceable, highest turnover workers.  The more skilled workers (college degree, specialized in a field) on the other hand, aren't just fed the BS.  If the company is worth it's weight in salt, these people are informed of the short term and long term goals of the company.  There are discussions about direction, opinions on decisions that were made -- dissenting opinions being much more valuable than a ""yes-man"" response.  That is, if upper management if competent.  From what I've seen, competent upper management is contagious.  It bleeds down the line.  Successful corporations have people at the top (and in the middle) who actually care about the success of the company.  They take pride in their work.  They know that by them making the right decisions their company can grow and intern hire more employees, pay those employees better, provide better perks, etc.  If you have garbage at the top, they'll hire garbage for the layer below them, and so on and so on...  Back to the point of the OP, I'm in a salaried position.  My salary isn't for my 9-5 appearance in the office.  I'm paid an agreed upon rate for my ability to complete a task and benefit the organization.  Sometimes this means I have very little to do for a few days.  Sometimes this means that I need to work 12+ hours in order to get the job done.  I'm fine with that."
Since you brought up the salary thing a few times; yes, if the manager was hired at a 50k salary, he should still be taking home his 50k, plus his tips. That's the difference between being an owner and just an employee.   If you want your managers more invested, try a small salary + % over profits each month as a bonus. $400/week + 10% of profits, defined as over X amount in sales each month. Or something more appropriate pay and expectation wise for your location.a
I don't own a business but I am a manager for a large IT company (globally dominant). I refuse to be dishonest in business and am lucky to work for senior management that shares that view. We win some, we lose some. We are as transparent as possible, keep our commitments, and seek deals that drive value for all parties.   Sometimes I am deeply frustrated by the lack of integrity of others and the benefits they seem to reap. But my reputation is excellent, my clients know they can take me at my word, I can look my kids in the eye and know that I walk the walk about my guidance on morals, ethics, and character, and I will someday die having spent my career in an honest and respectable way.  Could I make more if I was full of shit? Maybe. Is money worth that price? No.
Don't forget: Praise in public, criticize in private. Continue to see the best in people until they give you a reason not to and always keep taking chances on your employees. Rely on them to know their strengths. That will gain a professionals respect.
"So you are saying the game is rigged.  You said that the average raise has to be 4% and that is pre-decided.  So that means the game is rigged.  Also you discussed good and bad managers.  Well over 90% of managers I have had were horrible.   The good ones were great but they were few and far between.  Also you mentioned about how money is not everything.  The reason money is not everything is because the employees know they are not gonna get any more money.  So that is why they settle for ""casual friday"" and other bullshit perks."
My wife works at a prestigious hospital where advancement is based on medical achievement. Given what goes on her floor, the lack of basic management skills is causing things like chronic short staffing, which in turn directly affects things like costs (reliance on short term, expensive staff) and nurse to patient ratios. This cuts both ways: if medical staff want to be 100% in charge, learn a little bit about management.
It is the responsibility of the bid manager to recognize this and subtly ensure the team recognizes that within its make up there are different personalities, different thinking, action, communication and learning styles and it’s worth noting this is even more acute given proposal manager’s regularly build up new teams, more so than most other manager’s.
Yesterday's heroes are forgotten; make hay while the sun shines; etc. Once you've got the those first two taken care of, you have to learn to not squeeze too much and ideally squeeze their balls in a way that makes them feel thankful that you're squeezing them -- think ""win-win"". After all, if you can help your boss squeeze his boss' balls, you better be giving your boss' balls a good old fashioned squeezing. Nothing about this is meant to sound underhanded or backroom politic-ie. No one can succeed on soft skills alone and no one can succeed on pure expertise. You need to blend the two and hone them to your environment -- or go find a more suitable environment. A high performer who can't capitalise on his performance quickly ends up in a ""too valuable to promote"" position. You seem to have very little respect for your coworkers in general. So why the fuck are you still there?!? A true high performers rarely can stomach working with people they despise as long as you've been with this company."
Heck, people actually get excited about Wal-Mart, thinking they could make manager one day and what have you. So they do choose to work for Wal-Mart, but really, they have no other choice. They could just become homeless, yes, that is a choice they could make. Is it a realistic one? No. &gt; Workers are not essentially the same - if they were, they would tend to have the same wage. Didn't you just get done telling me that market wages are set by the market? You honestly believe that the workers at Costco are inherently more capable of the retail work Costco does and therefore don't work at Wal-Mart, because of their superior skillset? I worked at Wal-Mart briefly, out of high school. I was a great worker when I got hired, because I worked for the store remodel team out of Arkansas and they trained me very well. Then I started working in electronics and had very bad training by the outgoing manager, so I was viewed as a bad worker by the new manager of that department. Was I bad worker? Not at all, I just wasn't trained well. Wal-Mart has excellent and fully capable workers in some stores, some areas, etc, and terrible ones in others. They have a revolving cast of managers, and a lot of the capable ones leave the second something better comes along. So you have this slipshod management style and training that can be anything, and yes, the more competent people leave. Why? **Because Wal-Mart pays below market wages and benefits.** You can find good and bad workers at all retail stores, some with excellent training and some without. Wal-Mart is a bottom feeder but they employ plenty of good people who just have no other options. You seem to have this notion that the more 'productive' workers are readily apparent.. why look at this fine lad, he's 20% more productive than the rest of your workers. It doesn't work like that in real life. Sorry.
"keeps telling me that she'll be in a difficult position if I quit.  ""And she promised me that she will put me in contact with different people if I do well (she used to work in IBD)""  Let me translate.  Your boss doesn't care about you and will do or say anything necessary to keep you.  Sorry that's a bit blunt, but this is what management does.  If you leave and pursue IBD, they will respect that and help you whether you stay or not...unless they don't give a shit.  You need to do what's best for you.  You can very easily say ""I don't think this is the best place for me to learn X, I need to go to Y company to achieve this.  It took me Z weeks to learn this""   Of course this doesn't apply if you've known this person for years beforehand, but I'm 95% sure this is what you need to be aware of. Management sucks when you aren't in their ""club,"" (which it sounds like you're not) it's a part of life."
"Ya, I mean if your really wanting to gain ppl's respect it might be a good idea. What you WANT to be is a leader, not just a manager. Ever wonder why most ppl hate their bosses?? It's bc they aren't leaders. Just from experience, since your young and wanting to gain the respect of the employees...you will gain it 100% more from your work ethic than any kind of job title. And if you do have eventually tell someone what to do, don't do it as a ""boss"" but a leader. Show them what you expect, show them you believe they can meet that expectation, then help them achieve it. Instead of yelling or fear mongoring."
That is unfortunate. I am glad you were just a retail manager, as that mind frame is extremely poor. You have to build your team for your company to be successful, and that includes treating them with respect and providing pay relevant to their work (which, no matter the industry, should be at the minimum enough to live basically off of)  Source: Executive level recruiter and consultant  Perhaps we should get some people that are over 25 and actually work in higher positions in on the discussion, rather than bitter Wal-mart managers
&gt; building relationships from within to help with employee happiness  This is HR and management.  &gt; find inefficiencies  This is engineers (well, good ones) and intrepreneurs / R&amp;D.  &gt; report on anything illegal or unethical that may be going on at the company  This should hopefully be everyone.
Valid point that if you only have cliche phrases you're going to be useless, and some of these are pure idiocy, but that doesn't mean that managers should go out of their way to avoid using any cliche ever. Sometimes they're the correct phrase or idea for a particular situation.
Number 3 isn’t as easy as it seems.  I interviewed at one place and the manager was affable and happy.  He told me he loved his job and the company.  After I was there for 4 months I reminded him of this conversation and asked what he liked about the company.  He said he lied to me so I would take the position.  I left a few weeks after that, but I should have listening to my internal feelings about the company.  Be sure to look around at the staff and the environment, even the people you are not interviewing you.  Do they look like they are serving time and hope to be released for good behavior?  Watch their demeanor and body language they say a lot.    Number 5 is very important.   I have friends that took jobs that use out of date technology and now they are almost unemployable.
I don't think all MBAs are useless, but this quality of an MBA is depends heavily on the institution that issued the qualification. I have seen many MBAs incapable of managing, disrupting existing well-functioning teams, who got their degree at an obscure institution. But I have also seen management geniuses with an MBA from a top shelf institution. An MBA is not a goal, but a small tool. That's key IMO.
"If you swap the word ""shareholder"" for ""investor"" I think it helps clarify things. If you owned 51% of the company you'd get to say what to do with the cash, would you not? Managers are smart and successful, but ultimately just employees. Companies are beholden to their shareholders.   In a more practical sense, I would think the board (representing shareholders) and the upper management would have to come up with a plan. But shareholders have the ultimate say."