In the first place, a man represents a quality and to bind him to a profession today is not only impossible, but also dangerous. It is much more appropriate to bind this concept of profession to some human qualities. For example, considering the art of learning and developing an effort, or different technologies of thought formation.

Nowadays, for a person to integrate into their profession (which means that the person puts the professional interest first), it takes much more effort, because there are a lot of distractions or adjacent influences around. For example, the Internet. Therefore, it is important that the person becomes a manager of themselves. Today, this involves a fairly large element of corrections, wherein an important indicator is hidden. It's one thing when we are developing an effort by doing what we like, it's another thing to do something that, let's say, generates income, i.e. there is a clear focus on profitability.

Among other things, these are two different physiological conditions of existence of our psyche and body in terms of desires and wishes, where the primary outcome is not even the receiving of income, but where and why this income is invested! In other words, it is the ability to think three steps ahead!

In doing so, if we are not integrated into the work (at least to a degree of "I'm interested"), we consume the space, we want it. If we are integrated, we generate ourselves and everything that happens around. Those are also different conditions for the operating system called "brain".

A man plus a profession is equal to a synchronization, which is expressed when the full awareness has come, i.e. when the person has grown up, when he can express what his professional occupation is

In reality, it turns out that the person is subject to circumstances or, in the best case, becomes hostage to an unconscious experience (for example, because of age or lack of ability to concentrate). In this case, the person only processes the reflection developed by them, and most importantly, they lose the ability to be managers of themselves and of their own actions.

The person must express their profession, and not vice-versa. And every profession should be classified according to the strength, the degree of involvement of the consciousness. Thus, some professions may develop the person meanwhile others may oppress them.

A plain functionality must not be imposed on people. The function is a derivative of something. But tell me, how many people nowadays would be willing to at least accept this phrase, not to speak of processing it?

This became a diagnosis, consisting of the fact that the modern people are not a derivative function of their efforts, but are a consequence of a variety of parameters: both own innate capabilities and the "soaking" conditions during the production process called "life". Thus, we can say that people today are functions of circumstances.

By losing the bond with what really nurtures, teaches and develops them, they become at best technical robots.

The first thing that modern people should be professionally taught is how to be managers. And this is more than a profession, because without understanding, for example, the functions of the director or the executive officer, or the professional connections, it is impossible to self-organize within the required scope of action.

Take, for example, a diplomat: His inability to keep the opposite side intrigued, to collate simultaneously at least these three parameters: understand his own views, accepting opponent's views and seeing a third possible view, deprives the profession of its professionalism. Or, let's say, the inability to confine the conversation to the topic, restrain himself, etc.

Or a professional sportsman: his strength is not in the technique and muscles, but in the concentration.

Even if we take a university student, if he doesn't have the ability to study, what will he do next?

If we examine which personal quality is developed by people when they call themselves professionals in something or perform some functions, we will see that this is also management. But if people don't understand this, they are deprived not only from experiencing the process, but also from the support in the form of understanding the "what for?" and "why?".

So today, when the traditions are lost, there is only one profession, which is necessary for everyone – the profession of the manager. No matter if you are a street cleaner or a diplomat, based on that how you coordinate your actions depends the outcome of your work and your professional growth. And most importantly, your satisfaction from work.

Professional growth is an important concept; otherwise you slide down to the professional degradation. In other words, the profession you have chosen will oppress you.

Often, by postponing actions, or not wanting to do them, we shift into a state of expectation, and as a rule, we lose even the necessary outcome - bearing responsibility.

BEING A MANAGER – it's banal, not interesting, flat, trite and it even lame. Skip the refrain, and raise the question: why is it lame?

Here's what I say: The grape is sour only for those, who lack the skills to reach it.

Because it is a banal, a usual thing that a manager is a manager. For the manager himself doesn't understand who the manager is. It isn't interesting, because he doesn't realize the management within himself, he hasn't mastered the art of being a manager, he is only learning the craft.

This matter can provoke numerous discussions and debates, as for each statement "A" will be found a contra statement "B". And to quench this passion for negativism the both sides should be accepted. Then, at least, we will have the necessary effort, primarily in the mind. But we usually don't even come to create the effort due to the lack of understanding of the whole chain of actions or because this chain is interrupted. The most important thing became banal: the manager should always offer new ways and techniques within the laws of accomplishing the task or the segment. Here it is important to know how to structure at least your own understanding! Tell me, are there many managers nowadays who are able to write at least an analytical note? In other words, the very concept of a manager is being depreciated and turned into a banality.

It is flat, because today, in 90% of cases behind the idea of a manager are hidden some administrative functions. As a result, a manager is not a manager, and an administrator is not an administrator. Yes, this is how it becomes flat. Because there is neither the strength nor the patience, and in the end, not even the ability to hold at least two functions. In reality, being a manager comes down to the personal qualities of a man, rather than his developed qualities.

And even if these qualities are strong by nature, what does the manager add to them during his personal development? After all, the manager is, to some extent, a strategist. And this again rests on the individual qualities of the brain, which today do not excel at constancy, although respond quite well to challenges. Yet the manager is not a goalkeeper.

It is trite, because the goal of the management comes down to a speculative form of action, when it is important not so much to set up the entire chain, but to adjust it to tasks which, in fact, lack values. In the first place, the manager is a person, capable of making decisions and being responsible for the sector, which he is in charge of.

BUT! The manager is the brain, or at least a part of the brain, and therefore, he is required to have the ability to concentrate, to focus! And here one should not slip up! That's quite a topic!

It is lame. Where is the problem today? In the brain. After all, what for is the profession of a manager needed? To increase the effectiveness of what he is involved in. If his work depends on people, he must deal with the recruitment of personnel and decide who will and who will not be able to do the job properly.

If he sells products, he must offer his marketing strategy and progress, based on which the sales policy can be built.

But the most lame thing is that the notion of different levels within the management has been erased. It's one thing is to organize the staff in a shop or manage the waiters in a restaurant, it's another thing to create sales schemes for, let's say, cruise missiles. And the division here has its nature, based on the power intensity, the manager's passionarity and the strength of his concentration.

When a manager follows a direction, but does not determine it, he is no longer a manager. Without this there is no effectiveness. And without effectiveness, what kind of a manager this person would be?

In general, until the attitude to how to build an ability to be a manager isn't worked out, there is no sense to seek advice from those who already learnt this in different epoch. Then again, you must still find out whether your brain is able to grasp the subject and keep it. Maybe it is better to start from a palace or apartment management? Let's say, keep the keys in their proper place, and not to leave them accidentally somewhere else?

More information and full version of this article you can read at Dzyabyak program's website.

15 march 2016

Ask the author

Only registered users can post questions. Login.

To register click here..

| Дзябяк

Send this page to a friend

Share |
Friend`s name:
Mail a friend:
Enter symbols on the image:
Enter symbols on the image

Print this page
Notice: Undefined index: GetCode in /home/olegcherne/public_html/common/ : eval()'d code on line 5