Samuel Piette

[Unnamed Trialist]

16 minutes ago, saintjoes said:

I actually think it is all applicable. Note the striking similarities in the below "high performance environment" criterias, one work and one CANMNT:

1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/workplace-dynamics 

2. https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/john-herdman-interview-canada-world-cup/
 

Trust, security, team, purpose..

99% of workplace dynamics are not "high performance". That is the BS some CEO or manager sucks himself into believing, then borrows all this criteria from other authentic contexts of HP, and usually half-assed and badly. 

Borrowing, copying, aping.

As someone who teaches design theory, amongst other things, I've seen countless examples of business gurus taking design concepts for excellence and refitting them for business contexts, usually in ways that are so basic as to nullify their interest. From design thinking, to design ethnography, bodystorming, culture probes--I've seen guys doing workshops at a few thousand a shot, on a Saturday morning, for shiny suits whose entire content consists in regurgitating the lowest applied and conceptual level of what 19 year olds are learning at decent design schools. 

Most companies, and managers, just want things to work, more or less, and for them not to lose face in the process. They are in maintenance mode, and playing defence. Or else outright hiding. Then, if they cite elite performance models, it is just posturing, like they've been convinced they have a TedTalk at the tip of their tongue when all they are doing is the schedule or something equally inane. For me, most of this millenials bitching about Gen Z is just that, and more: not accepting that for a lot of what they are doing, most of it probably, you don't need elite anything, you just need things to be done reasonably okay.

But I appreciate there are guys who think playing FIFA22 or PES is equivalent to playing football. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[The Beaver 2.0]

Taking care of your employees does not mean coddling or cowtowing or bending over backwards to make them happy at all costs. That is a stupid and ineffective and naive strategy. Creating a culture of respect--at every level--is key. Harder to do at large organizations, for sure, but substantive improvements can be made with the right leadership.

Enjoying the discussion and the insight, but this is too massive a topic to properly discuss through this medium. Having said that, give some thought as to how certain elite clubs and national sides have been successful, especially those clubs or nations who consistently perform at a high level.  My guess is that culture plays a massive role, and it takes the right sort of leadership to set the right tone in this respect. Why does Bayern, for instance, perform at an elite level year after year after year, while a side like Man U--aside from the big W yesterday--have a golden era followed by a whole lot of crap?  The manager has a role to play, but I think success is bigger than tactics and player management. Think of what Herdman has done with both the women's and men's programs in Canada. Sure, he is a manager, but he was given free reign to build cultures of success.

 

[RS]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

For me, most of this Boomers bitching about Millennials and Gen Z is just that, and more: not accepting that for a lot of what they are doing, most of it probably, you don't need elite anything, you just need things to be done reasonably okay.

I agree with your overall point, but had to fix a key part of it.

[The Beaver 2.0]

24 minutes ago, RS said:

I agree with your overall point, but had to fix a key part of it.

Gen X will save the world! (Too bad there are so few of us.)

[narduch]

This thread reminds me of this Twitter thread

 

[An Observer]

5 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

There is nothing that makes me more unhappy then when my company tries to make me happy. Hey everyone let's stop working play trivia and give away Starbucks gift cards. Such and such brought ethnic food from where she is from! That's typically when I start looking at the window and think to myself... if I jump from here is there a chance I won't die?

Don’t worry.  If you worked for me, I would have sussed that out pretty quickly and treated you like shit as you want.  And enjoyed doing it.  😀

[An Observer]

7 hours ago, GasPed said:

Rec'd - as a fellow long-time people manager, I completely agree.  Having said that, I will also say that more recently I've noticed my effectiveness as a manager seems to be waning:

• My ability to motivate people with "Atta boy/girl" or "This is why you should do this - so go for it" doesn't work with the same frequency.  There are some people (particularly younger folks) who almost don't care what I say - they just do what they do when they want to do it.  They seem un-willing/able to take initiative or go the extra mile.   Even the threat of dismissal doesn't seem to boost their performance much, or at least not for long.
• Further to that, I used to explain my reasoning to my staff so they clearly understood decisions, and even if they didn't like them, they would respect and abide by them.  I still do the explaining part, but I find people don't care for my explanations nearly as much - all they care about is how the decision affects them, and if it's in any way negative, they make a large disruptive fuss.  There's no ability/willingness to look at the bigger picture, no negotiation/compromise, no appreciation for the needs/issues of others - it seems to be all about "what's in it for me".

Of course not all staff are like this, and perhaps this is just a trend from my personal experience, not a global one.  (In fact, maybe it's just me - i.e. I'm getting old and I'm not as good at my job anymore.)  But my anecdotal experience is that being a manager these days is more difficult than it used to be, and the results seem to be frequently underwhelming.  I guess it's time to retire?

I hear you on the first bullet point.  I am 55, soon to be 56.  Never had kids.  I suspect I am just so out of touch that i just don’t know how to motivate them.  What I try to do is have a cadre of 30 and 40 somethings underneath me that I can motivate and then they seem to be better at motivating the people under them (at least some of them are). I suspect for that reason that for many of them I am just out of touch but I also do hear from my younger managers that they struggle as well.  At the end of the day, I think that at least a significant number of Millennials and Generation Z are just motivated by different things at are not related to work which is fair but bad for the employer.  

On your second point, I have worked the last 10 years in Asia.  I have the opposite problem.  It’s definitely a stereotype but frankly its an accurate one.  Asian’s just don’t complain at least upwards.  It makes it much more difficult to manage as you just don’t know what they want.  When I was in London, every junior member staff including the assistants would tell you right to your face what they thought was wrong.  I enjoyed that even if I didn’t agree with them as I could then either make the changes needed or explain to them why we couldn’t.  In Hong Kong, you are largely managing in the dark and you have to expend an incredible about of energy and time trying to work out what are the concerns, and the figuring out how to address them with no feedback.

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, RS said:

I agree with your overall point, but had to fix a key part of it.

That is actually what I was thinking, thanks, being a boomer myself.

Wrote it wrong. Yes, I don't think much of my own generation's whining.

But I'll leave it for your enjoyment.

[MtlMario]

16 hours ago, kacbru said:

How about that cross field pas by Piettte?

Could you please stay on topic! Thanks.

[InglewoodJack]

Delete- TL;dr, employment is a transactional relationship nothing more nothing less. Employees have to look out for themselves, not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is extracting more revenue out of each employee. If I ain’t getting paid, I ain’t breaking a sweat. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by InglewoodJack

[Obinna]

5 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Delete- TL;dr, employment is a transactional relationship nothing more nothing less. Employees have to look out for themselves, not the bigger picture. The bigger picture is extracting more revenue out of each employee. If I ain’t getting paid, I ain’t breaking a sweat. 

Not that I blame you but fwiw this is part of the problem and it's a cycle.

Productivity is down, so people have stopped working hard as it doesn't get them any further ahead due to the loss of purchasing power. The younger you are the less assets you own so the less productive and morr shitty your attitude is. Some may say those generations are just fucked up, but they were raised by the boomers and gen x, so what does that say?

It's basically just a giant mess in my eyes, and it all starts and ends with the central bank creating too much cheap money for too long, because when money is cheap the need for strong productivity disappears.

May not be the best example (I am not yet caffinated), but if I wanted to buy a house let's say and money wasn't cheap, I would have to work my ass off physically and mentally, doing multiple jobs to save up as much as possible, since borrowing would be so expensive.

But money IS cheap, so I can buy a house working 1 job. I don't have to bust my ass, relatively speaking.

The problem is that due to so much cheap money house prices are so over inflated (because everyone can borrow this cheap money) that even if you busted your ass today and upped your productivity to the maximum you can barely afford an appartment, so the goal is not worth the effort. Being a productive member of society doesn't get you a commensurate reward. The system is manipulated and broken.

Interest rates need to go sky high and clear out all the bad investment so that things can start fresh. It remains to be seen if the central banks will correct the mess THEY created or whether they will chicken out and reverse course and start cutting rates when the pain becomes too great.

Anyways. Those are my early morning ramblings as my brain is just starting up for the day. Enjoy!

[jonovision]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

Productivity is down

Outside of pandemic related quarterly volatility, there is no long-term downward trend in labor productivity that would explain any of the other long-term trends you go on to discuss.

[Free kick]

Productivity is indeed slipping in Canada and has been for a while (long before the pandemic).  We are falling behind many other nations.   But it has nothing to do with monetary policy as alluded to earlier above.  One could argue fiscal policy has had an impact but not monetary policy /central bank.  

One of the main reason for losing ground in the area of productivity is that there relatively less private sector investment in Canada compared to the rest of the developed world.  If anything,  the low interest rates (ie>; monetary policy)  would have helped, not hindered, to generate greater private sector investment.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by Free kick

[Obinna]

40 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Productivity is indeed slipping in Canada and has been for a while (long before the pandemic).  We are falling behind many other nations.   But it has nothing to do with monetary policy as alluded to above.  One could argue fiscal policy has had an impact but not monetary policy /central bank.  

One of the main reason for losing ground in the area of productivity is that there less private sector investment in Canada relative to the rest of the developed world.  If anything,  the low interest rates (ie>; monetary policy)  would have helped, not hindered, private sector investment.  

I think this is partially true, if not mostly true. True that productivity has been slipping pre-pandemic, and true we have been falling behind other nations. Also true that fiscal policy is more directly responsible. However, monetary policy is intertwined with fiscal policy to some degree, even though they are separate mechanisms on the face of it. In other words, do the public generally get handouts when monetary policy is tighter or looser? 

Also, less private sector investment (in productivity), in my view, is very much related to monetary policy being loose.

Think of companies buying back their own stock, rather than investing in research and development that would increase productivity. Why do this? Because it's a better financial decision, of course. But why is that? Because we have an ever-inflating stock market due to increased money supply (i.e. monetary policy), not increased productivity! 

This is also why P/E ratios are basically meaningless.

What do you think?

Edited August 24, 2022 by Obinna

[Obinna]

45 minutes ago, jonovision said:

Outside of pandemic related quarterly volatility, there is no long-term downward trend in labor productivity that would explain any of the other long-term trends you go on to discuss.

How do you figure?

And what do you make of Ray Dalio's long term debt cycle? He demonstrates how the long term debt cycle and rising/falling productivity go hand-in-hand.

[InglewoodJack]

4 hours ago, Obinna said:

Not that I blame you but fwiw this is part of the problem and it's a cycle.

Productivity is down, so people have stopped working hard as it doesn't get them any further ahead due to the loss of purchasing power. The younger you are the less assets you own so the less productive and morr shitty your attitude is. Some may say those generations are just fucked up, but they were raised by the boomers and gen x, so what does that say?

It's basically just a giant mess in my eyes, and it all starts and ends with the central bank creating too much cheap money for too long, because when money is cheap the need for strong productivity disappears.

May not be the best example (I am not yet caffinated), but if I wanted to buy a house let's say and money wasn't cheap, I would have to work my ass off physically and mentally, doing multiple jobs to save up as much as possible, since borrowing would be so expensive.

But money IS cheap, so I can buy a house working 1 job. I don't have to bust my ass, relatively speaking.

The problem is that due to so much cheap money house prices are so over inflated (because everyone can borrow this cheap money) that even if you busted your ass today and upped your productivity to the maximum you can barely afford an appartment, so the goal is not worth the effort. Being a productive member of society doesn't get you a commensurate reward. The system is manipulated and broken.

Interest rates need to go sky high and clear out all the bad investment so that things can start fresh. It remains to be seen if the central banks will correct the mess THEY created or whether they will chicken out and reverse course and start cutting rates when the pain becomes too great.

Anyways. Those are my early morning ramblings as my brain is just starting up for the day. Enjoy!

I can’t comment munch on monetary policy as I won’t pretend I know too much about macro economics beyond what I learned in uni, but in terms of productivity, if we’re talking about how much the average worker outputs in any given industry (not sure how to calculate that, but either way), I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. Every company’s goal is to surpass last year, or quarter, or month’s targets, and wages do not increase proportionately- the goal of any company is to increase their growth, not their growth output. All I’m saying is that as a worker, I’m not going to buy into some company’s mission or whatever unless it’s going to put more money in my pocket. If they want me to buy into the bigger picture, give me equity. If your bigger picture goal as a company doesn’t suit me as a worker, it’s my job to go find a competitor whose bigger picture does suit me.

[Obinna]

8 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

I can’t comment munch on monetary policy as I won’t pretend I know too much about macro economics beyond what I learned in uni, but in terms of productivity, if we’re talking about how much the average worker outputs in any given industry (not sure how to calculate that, but either way), I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. Every company’s goal is to surpass last year, or quarter, or month’s targets, and wages do not increase proportionately- the goal of any company is to increase their growth, not their growth output. All I’m saying is that as a worker, I’m not going to buy into some company’s mission or whatever unless it’s going to put more money in my pocket. If they want me to buy into the bigger picture, give me equity. If your bigger picture goal as a company doesn’t suit me as a worker, it’s my job to go find a competitor whose bigger picture does suit me.

Oh for sure. I totally get what you're saying and I agree. The mission statement stuff is just fluff and you got to get yours as an employee. You got to look after yourself first and foremost. 

The view I was taking in response to your comment was a bigger picture macro view. Just wanted to share my perspective on why wages are not increasing proportionately. It is because there is a steady loss of purchasing power over time. The central banks are directly responsible for that loss of purchasing power, as I see it. How could they not be?

Even if one believes central banks are necessary for the banking system and/or economy to function, they'd have to concede that we're going to lose purchasing power over time as a result. That's not my opinion, it's math.  

[VinceA]

Bruh remember when player posts actually had discussions on the player?

[Bison44]

Workplace dynamics, macro economics..I think piette should just sacrifice his page to a general ad hoc discussion area.  

[RS]

We haven't seen the best of this thread yet!

[Norrin Radd]

1 hour ago, VinceA said:

Bruh remember when player posts actually had discussions on the player?

I remember when half the threads were about Covid. This is an improvement.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, VinceA said:

Bruh remember when player posts actually had discussions on the player?

We're talking about player development, productivity and diversification in the context of competent management--I'm totally lost. 

[kacbru]

2 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

We're talking about player development, productivity and diversification in the context of competent management--I'm totally lost. 

Don't forget the massages, ping-pong and pizza lunches.

[Califax]

Ooof. 
 

😶

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

1 hour ago, Califax said:

Ooof. 
 

😶

Has Caldwell been watching the same Piette we have?

He keeps complimenting him.