How would you characterize a manager who does not work 8-9 hours, but 11-12 hours? Is that good and can you call him involved, or are there nuances?
I hope before answering these questions you thought a little and were in no hurry to answer. In fact, there really are nuances and there is no single correct answer.
The main argument for overtime is “wanting to do more”. If it works out, this is a definite plus. But, I propose to also consider the minuses, which are rarely paid attention to ...
Possible consequences of executive overhauls:
1. Fatigue and burnout
Fatigue is a logical consequence of regular processing. And, not so much physical as moral and mental. When a manager works 12-14 hours, his brain gets tired, and the next day it starts up for a long time and slows down a lot during the day ... From which the manager can: miss important details, make sub-optimal decisions, make mistakes, say stupid things, react sharply to employee mistakes , ...
However, there is an exception. Overworking does not cause negative fatigue when the manager loves his job and it is like a hobby for him. Accordingly, all of the above consequences may not appear, or appear to a lesser extent.
2. Extra expenses of the company
I'm not just talking about the overtime that the company has to pay. Let's look at the other side. Overworking of a manager is often associated with the performance of non-core work, which has lower qualification requirements. Simply put, a leader does what someone less qualified and important can easily do. Accordingly, such work is cheaper. And, since in most companies there is no gradation and tariffication depending on the work, and the company has to pay for the hours of this work according to the price of the manager's hours.
To make it easier to understand, let's take an example:
Introductory
Assignment: calculate how many screw nails are left in stock.
Estimated execution time:4 hours
Manager's rate: $ 10 / hour
Employee's rate: $ 5 / hour
Modeling the situation A
manager receives such a task. He, looking at his employees and their serious appearance, concludes that everyone is busy, and decides to take this task upon himself. Plus, he is sure that no one can cope with this better than him and he will be able to make it faster and better. As a result, it turns out that the manager completes the task in 3 hours (one hour faster). But, is this really a win for the company? Let's similarly summarize:
- the task was completed faster and cost $ 30. Moreover, even if it had been completed in 4 hours, it would have been cheaper - $ 20. Even if for 5 hours it would be $ 25, which is also cheaper;
- the company saved 3 hours of work of a full-time employee, while losing 3 hours of work of a manager (more qualified and more important).
I am not suggesting that this kind of math is always correct. Sometimes it is more profitable to spend a manager's time than an employee's time. Especially if an employee is working on a unique project, he cannot be torn off and no one can replace him. But, is this always the case?
3. Does not have time to fulfill his duties, which are more difficult
Continuation and consequence of the previous minus. Due to the fact that the manager loads his schedule with non-core work, he does not have time for the work that is assigned to him by the position, and which no one else will do for sure.
Often this kind of work becomes precisely the management function: planning, delegation, control, ... The manager does not have time to analyze the achievement of the unit's goals, the manager does not have time to develop solutions to neutralize deviations, the manager does not have time to carry out preventive measures to prevent deviations ... undertrained ... He has no time!
As you can imagine, this is a vicious circle: the more the manager works with his hands -> the less time he has to teach this work to someone -> the more he has to do the work on his own ...
Therefore, the manager has to stretch his working day for a few more hours, since he simply will not have time to do everything.
4. Permission to be unprofessional
Overwork allows the leader to avoid development and management practices. He does not need to learn to delegate, he does not need to learn to control. Why would he force someone and become a "bad person"? You can work more and do everything yourself.
In addition, there is a rule: "if you want to do well, do it yourself." This is another argument why you shouldn't entrust someone.
5. Permission to be ineffective
Overwork allows the leader not to think about efficiency and planning his work day. When your work schedule is not standardized, you don't have to worry about how to optimally spend time during the day: you don't need to prepare for meetings (preparation would reduce the duration), you can watch video clips during the day, you can go to drink coffee for a long time, you can receive everyone who comes to you and everyone to say yes. Why squeeze yourself and hurry somewhere, if you can stretch the working day to 10-12 hours and calmly do everything?
6. Spoiled structure
As a rule, a manager who regularly overworkes has an easy and good life for his employees. And the problem here is not that they feel good, but that he pampers them. Instead of analyzing his work, the work of his employees, the workload during the day, finding opportunities to optimize time and effort, automating something, simplifying something - the manager chooses the path of processing. Like, “we don't have time, everyone is busy, so I have to work harder.”
Employees get used to a semi-relaxed regime, and then, when the power changes, or there are changes in the head of the head, it will be difficult to stir up such a structure (without consequences).
7. Demotivation
The average executive is more skilled than the average employee. He understands this, and for him it is one of the important filters. And when such a leader has to do work that does not require all his knowledge, skills and experience (less qualified), she, to put it mildly, does not make him happy.
When it is a temporary action, it is tolerable. If it is a constant necessity, it can be a strong demotivating factor.
8. Ignoring human potential
When a leader has the ability to recycle in his arsenal, he becomes less proactive and pays less attention to the potential of employees.
So, if the leader cannot linger, he will try in every possible way to find opportunities within the structure. He will study his employees, he will develop them, he will use their potential 100%. Everything in order to be on time. It motivates him to find opportunities!
Conclusions:
1) If your subordinate is a manager and he is overworking - figure out what is the reason.
I highlight three popular reasons:
- personal desire of the leader;
- by necessity;
- "So accepted."
The worst reason is "it is so accepted." It means that there is an unspoken rule in the company: “he who works a lot is a good fellow”. Guess who is to blame for the existence of such a rule?
The other two reasons are more adequate and require deep analysis. If this is a personal desire, this is commendable, but it is worth taking care that this does not affect the structure (problems # 6 and # 8). If this is a production necessity, it is worth analyzing it and understanding whether processing is really the only and correct option.
But, even if your subordinate manager does not overwork, still pay attention to the work that he performs during the working day and how much they correspond to his qualifications and functionality. If it turns out that he is doing work that can be easily delegated and there is someone and that someone has time, do it. Even if the manager instead of this work will have nothing to give (which is very doubtful), it is better for him to remain with an empty window from work than to take away the bread of his subordinates.
2) If you are a leader and you recycle- think about the described consequences. After all, if you are recycling, then you want to do the good of the company. And since you are pursuing good intentions, you must think comprehensively so that it does not work out that, on the one hand, you are beneficial, and on the other hand, you harm. And, in the end, it turns out that it would be better if you did not do this benefit at all ...
General conclusion
Recycling is neither bad nor good. The fact of overwork simply shows the time that an employee spends on performing his functions and can in no way be an indicator of his effectiveness. We should not be guided by the stereotypes “reworking means a good fellow and involved” or “at 18:00 he is no longer there, so he doesn't care about the company”. Not! Alas, everything is much more complicated and in each case it is worth delving into the details. Which is what I advise you to do regularly! Find
other cases in the telegram channel: t.me/OS_management
Subscribe! Then there will be ...