I spoke with a person who just couldn’t believe that the mere existence стиля. The management discussion highlights the presence of flaws in management. The correct style is one that goes unnoticed and, in fact, doesn’t exist. It seemed to me that during our conversation with him, we reached a common understanding; however, an interesting argument was made in defense of “stylishness.” It was mentioned that different jobs require different management styles. For instance, if you are managing salespeople, the style I referred to is more suitable for that process, whereas, for a warehouse manager, a different style is needed. The motivation and alignment of personal goals with company goals are clear for those individuals where there is a direct result, but not for those who perform procedural tasks or may engage in theft at the workplace.
I suggested then that for procedural people, it is even more important to bring their internal motivation to the surface, and for those “on the assembly line,” it is essential to structure their work in a way that makes it enjoyable. Moreover, we need to support them in their tasks, especially when their work does not yield direct and obvious results. If we have a job where, no matter what the worker does, it feels like the same “Groundhog Day,” then the effect of a proper, “invisible” management style—managing not people, but agreements—will be more evident in such a role.
I talked about ongoing coaching, feedback, the principle of “here and now,” building motivated trust rather than a system of total control, the futility of punishments, and so on.