Do you pass the nanny test?
by Miki SaxonImage credit: mktroch CC license
How time flies. I may be slow, but eventually I get there.
My good buddy KG Charles-Harris sent this to me last spring, he found the information both useful and amusing and thought I should pass it on. As I’m finally doing.
When hiring a manager, the author says to “chuck out all the psychometric tests and references that reveal so little and go for the “nanny test” instead,” adding the caveat that the test only works on people who had/have nannies.
“Managing a nanny is management at its most extreme. The stakes are gigantic: getting someone else to look after our children is the biggest act of delegation that any of us ever does. You need to find someone good, you need to get them to stay, and you need to keep them happy. This isn’t easy in a job that is poorly paid, has no career progression and involves much wiping of bottoms.”
Sadly, the description in the last sentence describes many jobs in industry. Sometimes it’s actually the job, but more often it’s the way you end up feeling after doing it for a while.
So the writer called the nanny she had employed for 15 years and asked for a review.
“I had hoped she would mention my skills as a mentor, friend, team player,” instead, the nanny said, “I think the reason I stayed with you all those years was your total lack of involvement.”
First reaction were hurt feelings, “But then I thought about it and realised she was quite right. Indeed, in a couple of seconds, my nanny test had told me something about myself as a leader. Not only do I not micro-manage, I don’t macro-manage either. I recruited someone I trusted with my children’s lives and I let her get on with it.”
Do you pass the nanny test?
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:54 am
The nanny’s comment is it in a nut shell. When we are at work and are busy attempting to finish our task list the last we want is a boss that is checking in, dishing out more work, evaluating the work we’ve already done…right? We’ll for some this is so true, if you are the worker that really doesn’t care what type of job performance they have, only that they are at work doing something and at the end of the day they can go home without even seeing their boss all day long. This is a horrible way to lead.
I like the “idea” of a boss who is involved with the daily goings on around the office, the boss that is in touch with what each worker should be doing and completing, the boss that can separate the friendship and working relationship. There is nothing worse than to have a serious situation going on and your boss asks two weeks later “What’s going on with such and such?” It is so hard not to throw an incredulous look their way but sometimes it can’t be helped. I think I’ll make a sign that only reads “STAY IN TOUCH” and see who all gets it.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Hi NDB, I agree that there is a difference between delegating and abdicating, but I think the ideal is to communicate the results needed, make sure people have everything they need to accomplish the goals and then get the hell out of the way so they can do it, while remaining available and accessible if needed. People will come to you if the culture in place is one in which they know the messenger won’t be killed.
I’m a proponent of bosses/managers/leaders practicing ‘management by walking around’, but also believe that it, and the trust required for it to work, must be embedded in the culture for success.
I’ve seen too many confuse involvement with interference.
Thanks stopping by and adding your thoughts; the more viewpoints/ideas/approaches the better.
May 9th, 2013 at 10:47 am
[…] The first post comes from Miki Saxon. It's a fun look at the way managers delegate tasks to others. Read the post and ask yourself Miki's question: "Do You Pass the Nanny Test?" […]