Siberian Accountability: You can’t say that here!
Alexander Kuzmin, the Canadian business school graduated mayor of a western Siberian city, has banned 27 phrases in his workplace. If city officials utter these phrases it “will speed their departure.”
Of course in the Russia of old, they used to send you to Siberia if you were in trouble so I wonder where officials will depart to now.
Here is a partial list of phrases that Kuzmin has banned and also framed on his office wall:
- It’s not my job.
- It’s impossible.
- I don’t know.
- I can’t
- I’m having lunch.
- There is no money.
- I was away/sick/on vacation.
- What am I supposed to do?
- What can we do?
- I’m not dealing with this.
- The work day is over.
- Somebody else has the documents.
- That’s impossible.
- Nobody told me.
- But you said yourself…
- But my assistant told me.
What do you think?
Is this a boss gone bad or a manager trying to shake things up to promote accountability and efficiency? Mr. Kuzmin said city officials should help improve people’s lives and solve their problems, not make excuses.
Do you have words you would like to ban in your workplace or would you like to ban a boss who stops freedom of speech?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: management
10 opinions for Siberian Accountability: You can’t say that here!
sabrina
Sep 6, 2007 at 8:26 am
Hrm. I think I applaud the spirit of the law, but the letter leaves something to be desired. I personally would far rather hear “I don’t know [but I can find out/point you to someone who does/etc]” than something someone just made up in order to avoid being fired for honestly admitting ignorance.
davidzinger
Sep 6, 2007 at 8:41 am
Sabrina:
I don’t know…whoops I wasn’t supposed to say that if I worked in this city.
Seriously, I appreciate your comment and I think ignorance is a key resource. Not knowing is where learning begins. We don’t stay there but we often do start there.
I would say more but I’m having lunch. :)
Justin Ryan
Sep 6, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I think there is some good in it and some bad in it. The list seems to be made up of phrases aimed at one of two things: Avoidance or Explanation.
I fully support banning avoidance phrases, whether it is avoidance of doing what needs to be done, or avoidance of accepting responsibility for not doing what you should have. “It’s not my job,” “it’s impossible,” “nobody told me,” and “the workday is over” are intended to avoid doing what you know you should, and getting rid of people who say them (by extension, getting rid of people who avoid doing their jobs) is a good thing.
I object to banning explanations, though. Sometimes, reality is that something can’t be done. Managers who say “I don’t want excuses” when an employee offers an explanation are poor managers, and they are the ones who should be replaced. (It’s also very demeaning, because it treats employees like children, instead of responsible adults.) If there isn’t money to do something, someone should say so. If management then wants to free up funding, it is their responsibility to do so, but they shouldn’t take it out on some poor employee because management failed to budget for projects. Likewise, if a manager asks “Why weren’t you in Monday’s meeting” and you were off that day, answering “I was on vacation” is truthful and appropriate. Punishing someone for utilizing thier benefits is unethical and in some cases, exposes the employer to civil liability.
Several other phrases on the list should be conditional: If they are being used for avoidance, they should result in punishment. If they are being used for explanation, they should be appreciated. “Someone else has the documents” is appropriate if someone actually has required paperwork and refuses to release it to a worker who needs it. It’s not acceptable, though, if all you have to do is ask for what you need and are too lazy to do so. “I’m having lunch” also falls in this category; it’s perfectly valid if the task is not sensitive, as nobody should be required to skip lunch for unimportant tasks. It’s not acceptable as a response to an emergency situation.
Given the entries on the list, I assume this guy is of the “I don’t want any excuses, I’m the boss and you’ll do whatever I say” type, and really should be replaced, for the good of th people he’s supposed to be leading.
Dean Fuhrman
Sep 6, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I think this is too harsh chiefly because those may be legitimate things to say and with amplification can become more workable, more actionable, maybe even morphing into not using the phrases anyway … how about these:
I suppose the intention was to get people out of the default response. But banning doesn’t seem to me to be the way to get engagement. It seems too limiting. So why not seek engagement, which is probably the point anyway. And talking about things, actionable talk would be more likely in my judgment to advance the cause.
davidzinger
Sep 6, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Justin and Dean:
WOW. What thoughtful and inspiring comments about “Siberian management.” You both gave a lot of thought and perspective on this.
Dean…I don’t know what happened to the comments going right across the page but it show your ability to think outside of the box(comment box that is).
There has been so much lately on Bad Bosses, Working for Jerks, Leadership Sucks, etc. I don’t know what your formal work positions are but you can lead from anywhere and the two of you and Sabrina certainly keep my faith in the careful and thoughtful leadership we have.
Thanks for the comments and for the support of my faith in leadership.
David
charlie
Sep 6, 2007 at 11:37 pm
the “i’m on my lunch break” was never in my vocabulary because i made sure that i was not at my desk at lunch time - i know sometimes that being at your desk cannot be avoided but if you are and you are also working then you should field the question even if it means writing it down and getting the answer later - you might say ‘please document that for me, i won’t be able to get to it right away, it would be a great help, thanks’
Brian Turner
Sep 7, 2007 at 12:45 am
Actually, it sounds like a good idea - eliminate negative thinking for better productivity. :)
Of course, that does presume the management are looking after morale anyway, so that such phrases rarely ever need to be considered anyway. :)
davidzinger
Sep 7, 2007 at 3:37 am
Charlie: I think we need our breaks and a good point about not being at our desk at lunch break. If we don’t break from our desk & work then we set up some of this difficulty when we get a request.
Brian: I can understand the frustration if you keep hearing the phrases and your point is very sound that management can play a big role in morale so that rather than banning the phrases they rarely get used!
Christopher Fox
Sep 10, 2007 at 3:26 am
As a manager I would rather be aware that people on my team have these concerns. And then take a few steps, even a 3 minute conversation, to help facilitate a solution–with the hope that it instills learning about the perceived obstacle. In my experience there’s usually a message behind phrases like this, and in my belief system as a manager I want to figure out what I am really hearing and how to fix it. Forbidding honesty just hides the truth about things that I might need to help fix. In fact, ironically, the whole “policy” could be a worse example of “It’s not my job. / I’m not doing this” than a climate where such honesty is allowed.
David Zinger
Sep 10, 2007 at 4:08 am
Christopher:
I love how your turned the comments back on themselves by stating “it’s not my job” as a worse example of what is being banned.
David