1/ Good managers understand the subtle difference between “it can be understood” and “it cannot be misunderstood”. The former assumes skill and motivation in the listener. The latter doesn’t assume anything; it simply works. Good managers strive for the latter.
2/ Instead, bad managers are content with simply mentioning or implying accountability. When, inevitably, one of their subordinates misunderstands or forgets, they blame him for not having understood.
However, by doing so, they imply that not understanding is an option.
3/ This will have consequences, as it is not that difficult to argue that an instruction was unclear. Earlier or later, someone will argue that, because instructions were unclear, he should be left out the hook. This is the beginning of a vicious circle that ends in mediocrity.
4/ To avoid this, good managers are so explicit in their communication with their subordinates that no one can possibly argue that there could have been a misunderstanding about them being accountable for the result of the task being delegated.
5/ In order to reach this unwavering level of explicitness and clarity, good managers are relentless in making the implicit explicit, even when doing so would seem an insult to the intelligence of their interlocutor
6/ Good managers do not let their politeness and their ego get in the way of the clear accountability assignment that is needed for their subordinates to perform at their best.
7/ Words are not enough; the attitude is important too. If a manager mentions to one of his subordinates that he will be held accountable for an objective but keeps micromanaging him, he is retaining accountability for himself.
8/ Good managers spend much time with their subordinates during delegation time, but then let them relatively free. They do check-in regularly on whether the task is on track to achieve the desired results, unless the subordinate proved himself exceptionally reliable in the past.
9/ However, even during those check-ins, they are always relaxed enough to let him know that he will be accountable for the result. They do not provide suggestions, unless asked or unless the subordinate is clearly off-track.
10/ Even in this case, good managers point out that the current methods might not achieve the desired result; they strive not to prescribe the new method to be used, in order not to steal ownership of the task.
11/ At no point, good managers risk being ambiguous about who owns the results: it’s always the subordinate.
12/ Good managers never assume an attitude that signals that they own the tasks they delegate.
Instead, bad managers keep themselves accountable for the tasks their subordinates should be accountable for.
13/ Because bad managers feel personally accountable for the tasks they delegated, they offer suggestions. They prescribe methods. They do not release their grip on the tools their subordinates will use. They do not let them feel accountable.
14/ Accountability cannot be shared. The more the manager feels accountable for the tasks he delegates, the less his subordinates will feel accountable.
15/ This was an excerpt of my book "Best Practices for Operational Excellence" (gum.co/opexbook) that I tried compiling in a thread using the excellent typefully.app by @linuz90, @frankdilo, and @meseali. It works wonders!
16/ They are the team behind the tool that enables this 👇
In many countries, the 2nd wave is causing more deaths than the 1st. Why?
Short answer: there were more active cases in October 2020 than in October 2019.
This fact was ignored by so many that it's worth a thread.
1/3
2/ For example, take two parallel words. In the first, at October 2020, Italy has 100 cases of COVID. In the second, it has 100,000.
If in both worlds it enacts the same measures, by December there will be many more deaths in the second scenario.
Obviously.
3/ Now, let's imagine that in October 2019 Italy has 100 cases, and in October 2020 it has 100,000. Of course, the second wave has a good shot at being deadlier, barring a miraculous vaccine or treatment. Even if everyone wears face masks and is locked down.
1/ First principle: we do not seek survival, but what feels like survival.
This principle explains self-harm, addictions, toxic relationships, and so on.
2/ Of course, often, the actions that feel like survival (such as eating) do help us survive.
But sometimes they don't. For example, eating 3 sugary donuts in a go lowers our survival, and yet it feels like survival, so we do it anyway.
3/ This principle goes against most of what we are taught (really? we do not seek survival?).
And yet, our actions are enacted by a part of the brain that doesn't have the capacity to think about the long-term implications of our actions; it just feels. That's the real process.
This chart is looking more and more like the one of the 1918-1920 flu. Second wave deadlier than the first.
After all, everyone who this summer was saying that the pandemic was over had zero arguments to answer "why would COVID be any different than the flu of 1918-1920"?
The lesson: don't look at lagging indicators (e.g., numbers); look at properties (e.g., viruses spread).
Less models, more common sense.
(Note: the 420k figure in the quoted tweet is an estimate by the researcher, not an actual number; I quoted the tweet for the chart, not for the text below – which is still interesting and worth reading, but an estimate nevertheless)
January 2019: 200 deaths, 100 of which due to flu.
January 2021: 250 deaths.
This is not: 250-200= 50 due to COVID.
It’s 250 - (200 - ~80 of flu that got prevented) = ~130 due to COVID.
In the example above, if it weren’t for face masks, it would have been 250 + 130 + additional deaths because COVID would have spread more - people who died of COVID but would have died of flu.
I'm against mandatory vaccination for vaccines without long-term studies, but as many countries are talking about mandatory vaccination, a few considerations.
(thread)
1/ There are not enough doses to mandate vaccination for everyone in a country, not in 2021.
Therefore, countries that do decide to mandate vaccination will have to prioritize, and only mandate it for some categories of people.
How to prioritize?
2/ We vaccinate individuals for two reason. To protect them, and to protect their contacts.
As a government, it only makes sense to enforce the latter.
2/ The investigative journalists of the quoted tweet outlet claim that they have emails showing that Tedros knew about it.
3/ The covered report, between others, claims that deaths were underestimated and that the central command-and-control was slow and led to blind spots.
Nothing new – but the news would the involvement of WHO officials in the cover-up.