RM Less Than Third Of Staff Back Management And Feel Valued

[Brain Fury]

Tbt what would happen if the manager was that good he got the job done without any overtime or you had a useless manager but he gave plenty of overtime, who do you think the staff would want?

Sorry but to use the overtime claims as an indicator of whether a manager is good or bad is part of the problem. The best manager in the world who motivates his staff could have no overtime claims, or the highest in the country - overtime is a Budget/Resource problem and has very little to do with being a good man manager.

As to the statement of what would the staff want - again thats the problem in a nutshell. Royal Mail see things too much in Black and White, on or off, open or closed. Whereas in life its different shades of grey. You take the concerns of the staff on board and address them where possible, but you don't base your decision solely on what they want, but you include, what the customer needs, what the business needs and what you, as a manager need. A good manager takes everything into consideration and makes a balanced and informed decision.

Me personally, I wouldn't want either manager you described, I would want someone somewhere in the middle.

I would want a manager to make a decisions based on fact reason and need to a given situation on the day and time. Not to edicts from above and pressure to make the situation that is most convenient for management bonuses and lack of hard labour for those they do get it and to fill the pockets of the royal mail at our expense which in they try to rob us all for a bigger market value!.

A bit naive to think that a manager will never have to implement decisions made further up the management chain whether he agrees with them or not. It's not a democracy

[Shambles]

[quote=".

A bit naive to think that a manager will never have to implement decisions made further up the management chain whether he agrees with them or not. It's not a democracy

interesting quote...

[UnhappyGremlin]

A bit naive to think that a manager will never have to implement decisions made further up the management chain whether he agrees with them or not. It's not a democracy

No. But they could be more democratic about the way they implement decisions.
There are better ways to get the job done than the one most managers appear to have adopted as their preferred technique.

[Brain Fury]

[quote=".

A bit naive to think that a manager will never have to implement decisions made further up the management chain whether he agrees with them or not. It's not a democracy

interesting quote...

It would only be interesting if anyone seriously thought otherwise.

I agree there are ways to make and implement local decisions but we all have bosses and sometimes we're just going to be told what has to be done and whether we agree with it or not we have to do it. We don't get to vote on it and we don't have a right of veto.

[Danelectro]

I agree there are ways to make and implement local decisions but we all have bosses and sometimes we're just going to be told what has to be done and whether we agree with it or not we have to do it. We don't get to vote on it and we don't have a right of veto.

so lets have the details or an example from your time in Royal Mail when you have been told something has to be done whether you agree with it or not? I cant possibly think of anything but B&H and bad H&S what else has a DOM to do but follow orders and say im just following orders,what about telling your Area Sector Manager he's a poor excuse for a human being and that pink shirt looks ridiculous with the yellow tie etc

[Shambles]

[quote=".

A bit naive to think that a manager will never have to implement decisions made further up the management chain whether he agrees with them or not. It's not a democracy

interesting quote...

It would only be interesting if anyone seriously thought otherwise.

I agree there are ways to make and implement local decisions but we all have bosses and sometimes we're just going to be told what has to be done and whether we agree with it or not we have to do it. We don't get to vote on it and we don't have a right of veto.

I see clearly now, my last layer of naivity has been stripped by your honesty....Go a step further and tell us, does that include covering for corrupt managers that abuse their position/power and lie for them during B&H Investigations, or am I peeing in the wind?

[jack]

Shambles Quote

I see clearly now, my last layer of naivity has been stripped by your honesty....Go a step further and tell us, does that include covering for corrupt managers that abuse their position/power and lie for them during B&H Investigations, or am I peeing in the wind?

....or lie for each other in court cases costing the business thousands in racism @ disability discrimination compensation payouts

[Shambles]

Shambles Quote

I see clearly now, my last layer of naivity has been stripped by your honesty....Go a step further and tell us, does that include covering for corrupt managers that abuse their position/power and lie for them during B&H Investigations, or am I peeing in the wind?

....or lie for each other in court cases costing the business thousands in racism @ disability discrimination compensation payouts

Incompetant As well as Incompetant Managers...

[jack]

Shambles Quote

I see clearly now, my last layer of naivity has been stripped by your honesty....Go a step further and tell us, does that include covering for corrupt managers that abuse their position/power and lie for them during B&H Investigations, or am I peeing in the wind?

....or lie for each other in court cases costing the business thousands in racism @ disability discrimination compensation payouts

Incompetant As well as Incompetant Managers...

maybe these questions could be put to moya in two weeks time in Birmingham, i'm sure she would give the reps an honest answer

[Shambles]

Shambles Quote

I see clearly now, my last layer of naivity has been stripped by your honesty....Go a step further and tell us, does that include covering for corrupt managers that abuse their position/power and lie for them during B&H Investigations, or am I peeing in the wind?

....or lie for each other in court cases costing the business thousands in racism @ disability discrimination compensation payouts

Incompetant As well as Incompetant Managers...

maybe these questions could be put to moya in two weeks time in Birmingham, i'm sure she would give the reps an honest answer

Really, ya think?

[Brain Fury]

This particular discussion came about because "k979aaa" said that he doesn't think management decisions should be made on the basis of "edicts from above". Either I haven't made myself clear or I am absolutely staggered that you think I have revealed some hidden secret. Haven't you ever been told to do something or do something a certain way and although you don't think it's the right think to do you've just had to do it? Of course you have. That's an "edict from above".

So translate that situation to your line manager. He gets told to do something by his boss. There might be some discussion about the decision or the best way to implement it but ultimately his boss makes the decision and it's your line managers job to carry it out; part of which is to pass it on to you. Your line manager might still disagree with the original decision but ultimately he has to do what he is told. It's such a normal thing that I am struggling to think of examples and of course in some cases the original decision might have originated at the most senior level and been passed down through the various layers of management - "Edicts from above".

I obviously need to keep examples fairly generic so that I don't identify myself but one example would be where I was given an objective for the year to reduce the number of occasions something happened by a given percentage. In my view that level of reduction was almost certainly unachievable and I produced some data to show why. However my boss spoke to his boss and came back with the message that if we pushed the issue further up the line, the percentage was likely to go up rather than down so I should just get on with it. Which I did.

I've no experience of the type of things that have been suggested regarding B&H investigations etc. I did attend some kind of employment tribunal many years ago and have been involved with various legal cases and the only instruction that I've got from my line managers was to stick to the facts.

[Shambles]

This particular discussion came about because "k979aaa" said that he doesn't think management decisions should be made on the basis of "edicts from above". Either I haven't made myself clear or I am absolutely staggered that you think I have revealed some hidden secret. Haven't you ever been told to do something or do something a certain way and although you don't think it's the right think to do you've just had to do it? Of course you have. That's an "edict from above".

Yes I agree in part, we all have to "get on with it" as long as "it" is "Ethical"

For instance if you had been told to twist the facts to suit your ex- employers agenda, especially at E.T, would you have objected? This is the point.....

I've no experience of the type of things that have been suggested regarding B&H investigations etc. I did attend some kind of employment tribunal many years ago and have been involved with various legal cases and the only instruction that I've got from my line managers was to stick to the facts.

The "facts" ?

The "real facts" ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Trying to sit on the fence here but I don't think this is as black and white as managers religiously sticking to edicts from above. Yes they, ultimately, have to do what they are told, but they should always follow their own conscience. In a business that really values their own staff and managers, both of these apparently polar opposite positions would be valid and acceptable

However, how do the "I was only following orders" defence, and Royal Mails ethos "Allowing our Managers to Manage" really work together. If doesn't because on the Delivery floor we hear of conference calls where managers are belittled, where senior managers shout at Unit Managers within earshot of the staff, and we hear managers too often say "I don't agree with this but....."

If we really had a professional management structure then I submit that the following would happen.

1. Managers would be allowed to manage their own units or sections without hinderance unless they were failing in their responsibilities. There is far too much micro-management from above in Royal Mail.

2. Managers would never "counsel" ANYONE within earshot of any member of staff, and certainly not in view of any managers staff. Its unprofessional and undermines any managerial structure, and any confidence that the staff may have in their own managers.

3. Managers would never say "I don't agree with this but......". They would be allowed to put their position to their own managers without fear or favour, and if then they were instructed to continue as briefed they would do so without comment.

I have only Deliveries to go by, and my own time as NCO in the forces but one of the things that I was advised by my mentors was that if you feel you have to step into a situation that is properly a subordinate managers responsibility, then its not that manager that has failed - but you.

Royal Mails management structure is upside down. Managers are making decisions to cover their own arses, rather than to help the managers and staff under them. Senior managers need to start trusting their own managers, and then perhaps us ordinary grunts may also start to respect them.

A good management structure has support flowing downwards, not upwards, and if managers are making decisions based on fear then it doesn't matter if we are Government owned or floated on the stockmarket, without change we are doomed to failure.

[Shambles]

Trying to sit on the fence here but I don't think this is as black and white as managers religiously sticking to edicts from above. Yes they, ultimately, have to do what they are told, but they should always follow their own conscience. In a business that really values their own staff and managers, both of these apparently polar opposite positions would be valid and acceptable

However, how do the "I was only following orders" defence, and Royal Mails ethos "Allowing our Managers to Manage" really work together. If doesn't because on the Delivery floor we hear of conference calls where managers are belittled, where senior managers shout at Unit Managers within earshot of the staff, and we hear managers too often say "I don't agree with this but....."

If we really had a professional management structure then I submit that the following would happen.

1. Managers would be allowed to manage their own units or sections without hinderance unless they were failing in their responsibilities. There is far too much micro-management from above in Royal Mail.

2. Managers would never "counsel" ANYONE within earshot of any member of staff, and certainly not in view of any managers staff. Its unprofessional and undermines any managerial structure, and any confidence that the staff may have in their own managers.

3. Managers would never say "I don't agree with this but......". They would be allowed to put their position to their own managers without fear or favour, and if then they were instructed to continue as briefed they would do so without comment.

I have only Deliveries to go by, and my own time as NCO in the forces but one of the things that I was advised by my mentors was that if you feel you have to step into a situation that is properly a subordinate managers responsibility, then its not that manager that has failed - but you.

Royal Mails management structure is upside down. Managers are making decisions to cover their own arses, rather than to help the managers and staff under them. Senior managers need to start trusting their own managers, and then perhaps us ordinary grunts may also start to respect them.

A good management structure has support flowing downwards, not upwards, and if managers are making decisions based on fear then it doesn't matter if we are Government owned or floated on the stockmarket, without change we are doomed to failure.

exactly what I was trying to say...

[fishtank]

one example would be where I was given an objective for the year to reduce the number of occasions something happened by a given percentage. In my view that level of reduction was almost certainly unachievable and I produced some data to show why. However my boss spoke to his boss and came back with the message that if we pushed the issue further up the line, the percentage was likely to go up rather than down so I should just get on with it. Which I did.

The problem with results driven management like this is that senior management might want something like a 5% cost savings plan implemented by increasing efficiency by 10%..

As a manager you might not be able to produce a 10% increase in efficiency,it might be too much like hard work but since the target is actually a 5% cost saving you might be tempted to look elsewhere to make up the difference.

Bullying/encouraging your staff to work for free,not paying overtime,not allowing paid special leave,short staffing,unachievable workloads have all been used to meet these targets for years.
The system of savings targets breeds lazy,corrupt useless management,the fact that managers do not have the courage to stand up and admit that either the targets are unachievable or they are just not personally capable of achieving them isn't something we should defend.