Naturally, this list isn't exhaustive. We could write a book on the subject, but it won't exhaust the topic. Rather, it's a compilation of the most common sins in the realm of so-called management (I hate that outdated word). Here it is:

1. Managers who don't know how to communicate with people. But it's usually not their fault.

2. Lack of employee engagement. But it's almost never their fault.

3. Avoiding delegating decision-making authority to employees.

4. Penalizing employees for taking risks for the organization.

5. Focusing on the goal as a numerical result, instead of the goal as a process implemented in the best possible way.

6. The absurd concept of achieving team goals by achieving individual goals (usually sales goals).

Regarding point 1 (Managers who don't know how to communicate with people, but it's usually not their fault)

They usually didn't apply for the position. The promotion came like a bolt from the blue. They were in a team where they were promoted because someone else left. Or the team had grown, and someone higher up thought it needed a manager. So, naturally, the most experienced member of the group became the manager. After all, They seemed the most logical and best choice. The team usually quickly realizes that this is neither the most logical nor the best choice. Besides, the more astute team members usually realize this before the unfortunate individual is promoted.

Statistically, most problems arise in companies after changes in the organizational structure or in specific positions. This is particularly true when a managerial position held by the same person for years is vacated and a person who has significantly contributed to the organization as a high-class expert is appointed to the position. Thus, situations arise in which a warrior (e.g., a top salesperson), who has honed their competitive skills for years, is cast in the role of a relationship specialist - one who is responsible for resolving conflicts, motivating people, organizing working conditions conducive to personal development, and so on. A manager is a bit of a nanny, a bit of a nurturer, a bit of a mentor. There are many roles they must fulfill. But the role of a warrior can be difficult to identify in this group. The difference in competencies between these two roles is so significant that a former expert in operations on the battlefield is often greatly inflicted upon them by attempts to transform them into an expert in shaping and nurturing relationships. Indeed, there are reasons why preschool teachers don't become commandos, and commandos don't become preschool teachers. The reasons lie, among other things, in their (very different) competencies and preferences. This example may be a bit exaggerated, but it quite neatly captures the difference in competencies necessary to effectively accomplish tasks in such diverse spheres as competition and collaboration. It's impossible to collaborate meaningfully while simultaneously competing. For the same reason, theories about achieving group or organizational goals through achieving personal goals (sales targets, for example) are simply fiction.

My role is to come into the organization, do my thing, and disappear. Typically, "doing my thing" involves appreciating people for their potential and making them feel more responsible for what happens within the organization. In this process, the overall mental well-being of the organization's participants usually increases significantly. People who feel good earn more money. People who feel bad will earn several dozen percent less for the organization because they will spend some time at work dwelling on the unpleasant experiences they have had. Still, not all new managers understand this. If someone can't understand this, they should probably change their workplace and take on a slightly different set of responsibilities. If someone, for example, has become a low-level manager and clearly isn't comfortable with the job, it's probably not their own fault. There are places in every company where the boss should be someone from the outside, not someone from the crew. Because production crew members have a completely different set of competencies and won't suddenly find their way in a new reality where they previously had to communicate with machines, and now they have to reach agreements with people and resolve conflicts, or where they were previously warriors and fought for the highest possible sales, as if to the death, and now suddenly find that their previous strategy isn't working because they no longer have anyone to compete with; instead, they have to collaborate. This won't work. People who have significantly developed competencies needed for a new position, radically different from those previously needed and utilized, constitute a very small percentage. These are the lucky ones who went unnoticed and suddenly found something that truly suits them and spread their wings. Unfortunately, in most cases, newly promoted individuals previously did what they were relatively good at and what they were good at, but then they stumbled upon something that doesn't suit them, and this becomes a problem for the entire organization. Employees reporting to the unfortunate promoted person begin to leave the organization, seemingly without any explanation. Turnover is at an all-time high. There are costs associated with searching for new employees, hiring, and onboarding. Orders have stopped being fulfilled on time due to increasingly severe staffing shortages, and the remaining staff doesn't want to come to work on Saturdays and work until 8:00 PM. And is it any wonder they don't want to?

Regarding point 2 (Lack of employee engagement, but it's almost never their fault)

Here are some things you might want to consider...

Extrinsic motivation is based primarily on emotions. Emotions don't always have the same intensity. They fade. Extrinsic motivation also fades. We become accustomed to what motivates us.

I feel like we devote too much attention and energy to the issue of extrinsic employee motivation. We think that if we motivate an employee with various benefits and achieve a relatively satisfactory level of motivation, then maintaining our motivational commitment at the same level will ensure that the employee remains motivated permanently. It's not. Extrinsic motivation is probably the most costly and, at the same time, the least effective way to get people to do what we want them to do. And what's currently the most fascinating thing about a job, the thing that makes you want to do nothing else, will become commonplace after a while. It will become natural, typical. It might still be cool, but the way we perceive it will evolve and it will no longer be anything extraordinary. And motivation - from very high - will decline to standard. So it's not about motivating people. It's about making them feel responsible for the organization. Then, they will be willing to sacrifice a great deal for it, even in a situation where they don't feel like sacrificing anything. When an employee becomes accustomed to all external benefits and they become the norm rather than an added value, and when they become emotionally neutral towards the motivators provided by the organization, a process begins whose final stage will be a sense of professional burnout. The organization will have nothing more to offer them. Therefore, let's either avoid external motivation altogether, or give people what they initially need, but don't build a team around it. If we intend to build a lasting, cohesive team, we must build it on true commitment, not on carrots, even if this time without the stick. A team is truly lasting and cohesive when people are willing to lay down their lives for each other. I know because I had the opportunity to be on such a team. And this team will last as long as its members cultivate a sense of purpose and responsibility for the team, the entire organization, or whatever the purpose of the team is.

You won't build a valuable organizational culture for your company through team-building events. Unless they take place during work, which likely won't significantly impact your performance. Planning numerous team-building events after work hours? That means you'll be taking away time from your employees that they could (should!) dedicate to their families or themselves for development, relaxation, or entertainment. Believe me, that's not a great idea at all...

Money is an important hygiene factor, but not a motivational one. More money usually translates to greater satisfaction or less dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, greater satisfaction doesn't equal greater motivation. Let's look at this, setting aside for a moment the issues of motivation, management, and psychology. Let's look at it from a purely business perspective, as a transaction. Specifically, if financially all you have to offer an organization's employee is barely enough to survive, can you expect them to offer the organization anything more than mere survival? The lack of an appropriate hygiene factor (in this case, remuneration) will prevent an employee from contributing to the organization's development. If a company throws scraps at people, people will throw scraps at the company. And even threats of dismissal won't change much. The same will happen to anyone who joins the staff after laying off previous employees. They won't be creative because they won't be happy. This will sooner or later lead to increased customer dissatisfaction. The truth was spoken by the person who believed that if you have dissatisfied employees, you will also have dissatisfied customers.

The most enduring motivation to act can usually be reduced to a sense of responsibility for something or someone. Another relatively strong motivator is a sense of meaning. How strong? Well, perhaps it's worth looking at this issue from the other side: how strong a demotivator is the feeling that what you're doing is meaningless? A third, much weaker motivator is passion. And it almost always has an extra-organizational source, as it most often appears before joining the organization. Relatively enduring motivation, therefore, stems from a sense of duty, a sense of meaning, or passion. However, a sense of duty is the hardest to destroy, while the motivation to act stemming from passion is the easiest to lose.

Our main goal is to ensure that everyone feels co-responsible for the enterprise, or a part of it. When do people feel responsible for something? When it's theirs, when it's their property, their work, or their child's work. Or when they have the opportunity to make decisions about it.

Since we're considering ownership as a factor in fostering a sense of responsibility... Is it more beneficial to develop your own business or someone else's? Who is more committed to the organization? The entrepreneur (owner) or the employee? And what if the employee also became a co-owner? If the organization paid reasonable dividends, could an employee who is also a co-owner assume that thanks to the company's growth, their children or grandchildren could live off the dividends alone or supplement their household budget? Do you want to grow your business? Share it with good people who can do many things better than you. And then just don't bother them. Of course, not every employee wants to feel like an owner. However, in such a case, considering sharing the company's profits in the form of a bonus is highly recommended.

Regarding point 3 (Avoiding delegating decision-making authority to employees)

It's time for the cliché: "If you've been running a company for at least seven years and can't leave it for one week a month, you're doing something wrong." You're most likely mismanaging your trust in your employees. You could, of course, keep every decision to yourself and spend your entire life in your office, isolated from the world. Or educate your employees and systematically give them decision-making authority, first in less important matters, so they can test themselves in the new reality. And when they feel confident enough, systematically transfer your corporate authority to them. They'll likely be able to handle it. On the other hand, if you rightly believe that your employees are incapable of managing the entire company without your presence and involvement, it may mean you're choosing the wrong people. And this is where the financial question comes in... How little are you paying your employees so that you only have those around you who can't do anything for you?

Regarding point 4 (Penalizing employees for taking risks for the organization)

If we punish failure, no one will risk growth. Without new projects, you stagnate. If you stand still, everyone else will overtake you.

I've seen hundred times people afraid to make decisions. Decision paralysis is what kills an organization the fastest. People are afraid to take risks, and risk-taking is the essence of entrepreneurship.

Something went wrong? Don't look for someone to blame. Finding someone to blame is gaining knowledge about the past. Let's leave the past to historians. We are entrepreneurs, so let's focus on the future and solving problems. Finding and finding someone to blame stigmatizes them. This negatively impacts relationships, reduces efficiency, and is useless to any reasonable person. Finding someone to blame sends a clear message that making mistakes is unacceptable. And the fear of making mistakes creates a fear of taking risks. Without risk, there is no entrepreneurship; without entrepreneurship, we don't exist as entrepreneurs. Organizations that focus on finding someone to blame derive no benefits. They only waste resources unnecessarily.

Regarding point 5 (Focusing on the goal as a numerical result, instead of the goal as a process implemented in the best possible way)

Let's not strive to achieve quantified goals. Let's not focus on achieving results described by numbers. Most performance plans are completely arbitrary and contrived. I've never met anyone who participated in creating a performance plan and could meaningfully articulate the reasons for setting these values. Instead, let's focus on implementing processes. Our outcome should be a well-executed process, a properly executed activity. Let's focus on the work system, implement it, and see where it leads. However, let's not be misled by the concept of process management. In my subjective opinion, process management statistically introduces more chaos than improvement.

More about quantification of results here.

Regarding point 6 (The absurd concept of achieving team goals by achieving individual goals (usually sales goals))

Simultaneous emphasis on achieving individual and group goals is usually anti-synergistic and counterproductive. Synergism and individualism are incompatible. They are opposites. Such a strategy could work if personal goals and corporate goals were truly aligned. However, the way goals are defined in most organizations precludes this. It's difficult to achieve group goals (because they must be done collaboratively) if there's only one quarterly trip to Egypt for the best employee.

If people on a team are playing against each other, there's no team. It's a fiction. Either we reward the entire team and create a team, or we reward only some of its members and thus devastate the team.