Poynter Online

What Great Bosses Know About the 5 Mistakes New Managers Make

By Jill Geisler

Buyouts and layoffs have altered the management ranks of many newsrooms (as well as other businesses in this country). Veteran managers depart; fresh faces are tapped for leadership roles. New managers are stepping up at the most challenging of times, when resources are tight and change seems constant. Bosses must be at their best.

That said, old and new managers have one thing in common: very few had training for management. They were promoted because of their good performance in their craft, and perhaps for some demonstrated ability or interest in helping others. In these days of shrinking staffs, some folks who don't even aspire to management are being drafted to help fill holes.

Lacking training, new managers just plunge into the job. They often lack confidence. They always learn by trial and error. To help build confidence and minimize errors, let's identify some common traps that await the newly-promoted.

Here are five new manager mistakes:

1. Doing your old job. It's hard to give up what you're good at, especially in times of short-staffing. Keeping your hand in the daily work is comforting to you and helpful in the short-term approach to the team's workload. But it can keep you from teaching others how to do the work and from learning and practicing other aspects of management -- from strategy to scheduling to coaching -- that are vital.

2. Fearing "I don't know." Don't bluff. It reduces your credibility. If you don't have the answer to a question, acknowledge it, promise you'll find the information or answer and then follow up. People don't expect you to be an expert on all aspects of the operation when you're new. They'll cut you slack if you're honest and committed to learning and helping them.

3. Avoiding experienced employees. New managers often assume veteran employees resent or resist bosses with less work or life experience than their own. It's better to assume thatexperienced staffers want to know what everyone else does: What are going to do for me -- or to me? Employees of all experience levels hope their managers will be good advocates for their work and agents of their success. 

4. Mismanaging old friends. Your relationship with former colleagues changes when your first loyalty is now to the whole team, not just those with whom you shared a social life. But that doesn't mean you can't be friendly. You just need to be forthright about boundaries. As a boss, you can't unfairly favor old friends, or appear to. You can't traffic in the great gossip or diss the idiots in management as before. You're sometimes the bearer of bad tidings, from criticism to crummy work shifts or worse. If folks were true friends and you lead with integrity, they'll understand and adapt to the new relationship.

5. Mismanaging your boss. Know your boss well enough to have a solid fix on the span of your authority and autonomy. Understand your supervisor's values, goals, pressures and preferences when it comes to communication and decision-making. Your boss may not be perfect, but it's your job to make the relationship work, and in so doing, increase your effectiveness for your team.

New managers, and even not-so-new ones also struggle with "imposter syndrome." If you often find yourself thinking, "This is the day they find out I don't really deserve this job," then let me offer you some advice in today's podcast: "What Great Bosses Know about New Manager Mistakes."

What Great Bosses Know about New Manager Mistakes

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. You can subscribe to this podcast via RSSor to any of our podcasts on iTunes U. 

FTC Testimony Explains 3 Trends for Newspapers in 2010

By Rick Edmonds

The remarks below were prepared for testimony offered Dec. 1, 2009 at the FTC workshop "How Will Journalism Survive The Internet Age?" and have been adapted for this format.

My assignment is to talk about the state of the news business, newspapers in particular, right now and in the near future. I guess that makes me the Ghost of Christmas present. And there are some unfortunate parallels between the finances of the industry and those of Bob Cratchit's family. The health of several once robust metropolitan newspapers is now as fragile as Tiny Tim's. 

I am not among those who think that newspapers are dying. But these have been excruciatingly hard times for the news business, and more of the same is in prospect for at least the next six to nine months. 

Very quickly, what went wrong? Three things: 

1. Internet competitors like Monster, Craigslist and, less directly, Google search, took away much ofnewspapers' classified advertising. A decade ago, classified made up half the advertising revenues at some large papers, even more of the profits since it was inexpensive to sell.
2. A second problem may be less obvious. Early this decade industry leaders had hoped there would be anorderly transition of readers and advertisers to the online format. Audience has migrated gradually, but advertisers much less than anticipated. As you probably know, general online display rates have fallen sharply for several years now. Basic questions linger about the effectiveness of ads that digital users may view as an annoying interruption. There is insider talk now of "banner blindness." Digital revenue growth has stalled.
3. Add to these two trends the deep recession, which has impacted all kinds of advertising, especially categories like real estate, employment and auto –- the latter critical both to newspapers and to local broadcast.

The sum of these troubles is that by the end of 2009, newspaper ad revenues will have declined roughly 45 percent in three years. 

By necessity, newspaper organizations have cut deeply just to stay in business, even more deeply if they are to maintain profitability. Newspapers have been busily outsourcing all sorts of things from office functions to printing. Many metros have cut circulation to outlying areas and spend much less than they used to on selling new subscriptions. As a result, paid daily circulation was off more than 10 percent year-to-year in the most recent reporting period. 

Also, at a time when aggressive investment in new ventures is clearly indicated, newspaper organizations have scarce resources for start-ups and limited access to capital. 

But the visible edge of the cutting is in the newspapers themselves -- many fewer reporters and editors, downsizing of the physical dimensions of the paper, sharply curtailed space devoted to the news report. 

FTC Workshop, Dec. 1-2, 2009 How Will Journalism Survive The Internet Age? candacejeanneMicrophones = still on. #ftcnews.38 seconds ago  jeffjarvis #ftcnewsLiebowitz just admitted this is a hearing (v workshop) and is already planning more for "remedies".2 minutes ago  irworkshop Bryan Monroe: this shld be discussion on how journalism survives not how newspapers survive. #ftcnews2 minutes ago  StephenForce Why does FTC bother to involve new media (http://tinyurl.com/ybjw7...) after marginalizing it (http://tinyurl.com/yl9sh...)? #ftcnews #FTCfail2 minutes ago  NPRinterns Watching the News Media Workshop from#ftcnews:http://bit.ly/5kN3cf/ @megbiallas2 minutes ago  jamesrgaines FTC panel reminds me of Thomas Jefferson watching Bastille Day: He just didn't get it. Wanted reform, blind to revolution. #ftcnews2 minutes ago  digiphile Contreras makes analogy to the music industry, says there are "poignant similarities" to news business. Favors ASCAP/BMI, B2B model #FTCnews3 minutes ago  jeffjarvis FTC bureaucrat: you are leading the witness and betraying your legacy protectionist prejudice. #ftcnews3 minutes ago  javaun If story titles are so valuable, shouldn't newspapers put print issues in brown paper bags like adult magazines? #ftcnews4 minutes ago  notaaroncraig If only FCC would remove barriers to newspaper-fudge shoppe crossownership (h/t Corie Wright)#ftcnews4 minutes ago  jeffjarvis FTC bureaucrat throws softball to newspaper guy to attack aggregators#ftcnews5 minutes ago  saduros What's happening to my tweets? Bringing my laptop this afternoon#ftcnews5 minutes ago  HelenaG @ftcnews to Jonathan Knee How a media company can distribute their news when they are reused without licensed? close the news sites?5 minutes ago  martindaveNewspapers (dead tree) are not surviving because of readers but because of local retailers who have not yet figured out online. #ftcnews5 minutes ago  candacejeanne We are 1 month away from 2010. Here's a#newyearsresolution: Let's finally stop calling it "new media". #ftcnews.6 minutes ago  amandachapel@beyondbroadcast"The futureofnews depends on moving from audiences to building communities.#ftcnews" Something Joe Goebbels believed, too.6 minutes ago  digiphile 1 model for reporting by assignment cited by @DavidWestphal at#FTCnews: New England Center for Investigative Reporting:http://necir-bu.org6 minutes ago  beyondbroadcast The#futureofnewsdepends on moving from audiences to building communities.http://bit.ly/5tCF2S#bigthaw #ftcnews(via @JasonBarnett)8 minutes ago  saduros@SaveTheNews well let's talk about ho w that policy would work... #FTCnews9 minutes ago  mattmog1Unauthorized Reprints Online Are Rampant, Data Sayshttp://bit.ly/7ixSib#ftcnews9 minutes ago  NABJDigital@aprilloturnerreports that former#NABJ Prez Bryan Monroe speaking at#ftcnews journalism workshop on need for diversity in the business.10 minutes ago  TheMediaWonk The FTC is holding workshop tues./wed. on future of news. Webcasthttp://tinyurl.com/yj3er..., #FTCNews10 minutes ago  LeavittDC Ever wondered how revenue for Kindle content is divided? I just learned: 1/3 to publisher, 1/3 to Amazon, 1/3 to mobile provider.#ftcnews10 minutes ago  amandachapel@jcstearns "Citizen journs are showing up at meetings that no one would be otherwise"- @DavidWestphal#FTCnews" Rare, insignificant, silly.10 minutes ago  digiphile @acarvinYep, @jeffjarvis is on iPhone. Maybe autocorrecting "govt" to "goby" is the device's opinion that > regs might be fishy? #ftcnews12 minutes ago  telex "Citizen journalists are showing up at meetings that no one would be otherwise"- @DavidWestphal#FTCnews /via @digiphile (via @jcstearns)12 minutes ago  jcstearns "Citizen journalists are showing up at meetings that no one would be otherwise"- @DavidWestphal#FTCnews /via @digiphile14 minutes ago  SaveTheNews@saduros public policy can help change the equation and help create a system that values journalists and consumers/communities#FTCnews15 minutes ago  scottleadingham FTC holding workshop today and tomorrow on #journalism and business models. Webcast here:http://bit.ly/iptMk#ftcnews15 minutes ago  jessdrkn Monroe: distributors who hold pipeline are hungry for content, see NBC-Comcast deal#ftcnews15 minutes ago  jamesrgainesListening to Nina Link on mag-digital migration: Why is no one talking about reimagining, not just adding, content for new medium?#ftcnews17 minutes ago  acarvin @jeffjarvisthat last tweet must be from an iphone since it appears to have autocorrected "govt" into "goby."#ftcnews#autocorrectFAIL17 minutes ago  amandachapel@javaun "The low barrier to entry means amateurs can hop on, but there pros here too" Like water and a farmer watching a tsunami.#ftcnews18 minutes ago  jcstearns Newspaper industry lobbying against opt-in requirements for behaviorally targeted, online adshttp://tr.im/GjGc/via @NiemanLab#ftcnews18 minutes ago  amandachapel@javaun "the web is a vehicle, pure and simple" And asbestos is just a material. You grossly underestimate the consequence of form. #ftcnews19 minutes ago  digiphile "Citizen journalists are showing up at meetings that no one would be otherwise"- @DavidWestphal 1st mention of the concept by#FTCnews panel19 minutes ago  jessdrkn mag assoc person: there will be hybrid biz models, paid content on mobile phones, new rev models #ftcnews19 minutes ago  NABJDigital NABJ Digital blog posts about #ftcnewsworkshop on future of journalism in Internet age:http://tinyurl.com/y8ny7...20 minutes ago  jcstearns Me too "A poll: How many of you know someone under 30 who reads a newspaper in print? 40% raised hands"[email protected]digiphile at#FTCNews /via @morisy20 minutes ago  bobwyman #ftcnewsmagazines address communities of interest not geographic communities.20 minutes ago  PotatoPro Overlap between online readers and offline readers of magazines is only 15% #ftcnews20 minutes ago  jessdrkn panelist: in some cases, orgs are limited in coverage, but feel more news upstarts will fill in gaps for watchdog role #ftcnews21 minutes ago  HelenaG Jonathan Knee os media eram monopolistas c/ margens de 40 a 50%, agora tem + concorrência margems caem para 20%http://twitter.com/ftcne...21 minutes ago  jeffjarvis #ftcnews Ex Hearst fred young says he is teaching journ and isn't sure o the difference between aggregtion & plagiarism. Whoo boy22 minutes ago  jprofnan follow the D.C. FTC hearings on news @ #ftcnews22 minutes ago  jamesrgaines Fred Young of Hearst TV: Competition in local TV markets leads to great investigative reporting? In what universe? #ftcnews23 minutes ago  amandachapel#FTCNEWS re: "need for professional journalists" - The Web doesn't believe in professionalism. PERIOD!23 minutes ago  jessdrkn questioner: to what extent can new news outlets do investigative work? are those reporters showing up to all the muni meetings?#ftcnews24 minutes ago  spj_tweets From#ftcnews event: what fuels local TV investigative reporting is competition among stations.24 minutes ago  digiphile "For years, sports funded coverage of City Hall"-Martin Kaiser. Cites paper's social media use but it's buried:http://jsonline.com#FTCnews24 minutes ago  Join the conversation

Several months ago I sought to quantify these losses, using available data on lost revenue and some survey information on news budgets as a percentage of revenue. 

The result: By a conservative calculation, newspapers are generating $1.6 billion less in annual spending on news, headed into 2010, than they were three years ago. 

Granted, some of that spending may have been inefficient, even unnecessary. But one alarming implication of that number is that we really don't know what investigations, insight and basic civic coverage simply didn't happen and won't. A second is that the explosion of exciting new ventures, still finding their way to sustainability, does not match the scale of the work lost. 

Well, we do know a bit of what is missing. Let me highlight two areas. Specialty beats, including coverage of arts, higher education and state government, are being closed down all over the country. 

Science is a particularly good example. Not so long ago, any decent metro had a weekly health and science section and or sometimes one of each. Now, only the largest of newspapers have more than one or two science reporters, if that. The biggest topics -- environment, climate change and health -- still are covered, but the rest of science isn't, except in national newspapers and specialized publications. 

Much of what we do get comes lightly filtered from the public information arms of universities or companies. The experienced science journalist, who can assess claims critically and treat complicated concepts clearly and accurately, is an endangered species in mainstream media. Citizens with intense interest in these topics increasingly turn to government Web sites -- like NASA's -- or those of advocacy organizations for depth and detail. 

A second type of news that has taken a sharp hit is metro newspapers' coverage of their extended region. In better times, the big metros fielded bureaus in dozens of suburban town and school districts. That type of coverage is deemed too expensive now. There isn't space for it either. 

As the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle put it to me a few years ago, "We can't afford to cover the Richmond City Council any more." (Richmond is a close-in East Bay suburb.) 

So residents of these communities -- and there are millions of them -- no longer have the basic news of their community covered by metro level reporters and editors. If they are lucky, the slack may be picked up by a local weekly or a hyper-local citizen-initiated online start-up. Otherwise, they do without. 

So that's the present. I should say that magazines, network broadcast television and local broadcast all are experiencing revenue pressures that translate to decreased editorial ambition. The challenge is not as life-threatening as for newspapers, but it is very real. 

I'd like now to turn to three concerning trends for newspapers as they close this year and head into next. 

First, the advertising picture is improving only in the sense that it is less bad, not that advertising is yet bouncing back. Public newspaper company reports and industry estimates put the declines at 30-35 percent in the first half of the year. In the third quarter, the rate of decline was more like 25 to 30 percent. The fourth quarter may be a little better than that. 

Cost-cutting actions cycle through the year. So layoffs or other expense reductions instituted in June will turn up as savings in January. But as long as advertising revenues continue to fall at double-digit rates, newspaper companies have little choice but to cut more. 

So we are headed into more waves of layoffs and buyouts -- not to mention furlough programs, pay cuts and benefits reductions -- in the months ahead. That won't stop until revenues begin improving rather than just falling a little more slowly. 

These cost pressures are perilous for a second reason. In my view and that of others, many papers are close to a tipping point where there is so little in some editions that they fail to satisfy loyal customers who still like a print format newspaper and are willing to pay for it. 

That hastens the departure of readers on the margin to the less lucrative newspaper Web site some days of the week, or to other sources of news entirely. 

Phil Meyer of the University of North Carolina identified this vicious circle several years ago in his book, "The Vanishing Newspaper." A weaker product leads to circulation declines(currently 10 percent, remember). Lower circulation decreases the value to advertisers and drags down ad revenue. The lost revenues force further reductions in news space and news staff. Repeat indefinitely. 

So further cutting for newspapers -- now and in the months ahead -- is risky as a business proposition, even leaving aside public service considerations. But further cutting will be hard to avoid, and there is no date certain for improved revenues. 

That brings me to a third point I would like to highlight briefly. In this difficult year, some newspapers -- The Washington Post and Boston Globe are good examples -- have lost money, and by dint of aggressive cutting, expect to get back to break even or a modest profit in 2010. Breaking even in 2009-2010 is not a bad result for this year, especially if that preserves a strong news franchise for better times. 

But a great many papers are additionally burdened by debt, typically taken on earlier this decade to finance acquisitions at what, in retrospect, were inflated prices. These newspaper companies may still be making double-digit operating margins -- on much reduced revenues -- but generating only enough earnings to make interest payments and pay down debt. 

Such is the situation of McClatchy, the second largest public newspaper company, which absorbed most of Knight Ridder in 2006. 

For others, the debt is overwhelming, and so we see a number of individual newspapers -- those in Minneapolis and Philadelphia -- and several newspaper companies, notably Tribune, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and others, in bankruptcy proceedings. A few other papers like the San Diego Union-Tribune have been sold at a very modest price to private equity firms without previous news experience. 

As these proceedings run their course, we are seeing some papers pass into the hands of secured lenders, including specialists in distressed assets. A lenders group, headed by the New York firm Angelo, Gordon, now owns the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. 

Angelo, Gordon also has a leading role among the secured lenders groups seeking control of Philadelphia Newspapers and Tribune. Management at each of those companies still are fighting in court for a reorganization plan or auction that will keep them in control. The result is uncertain. 

But long story short, private equity owners will be running several or many of our biggest metro papers in the next several years. There is no record to say they will be bad owners, but the situation introduces one more form of instability to the industry. 

Despite this admittedly gloomy take on the industry, I see its current state as discouraging but not hopeless. 

Newspapers have been increasing their subscription and newsstand prices aggressively. There has been some loss of audience, but overall the price increases have been received well and several companies are reporting at least modest circulation revenue growth. 

That corrects a historic imbalance in which American papers have typically sold for half or less the going rate in other industrialized countries. So an over-reliance on advertising as a share of revenue is being fixed. 

The coming months are almost certain to see some experiments with charging for online content as well. Getting a better deal from news aggregators and search-engine companies is a real possibility. I'll reserve that story for Mr. Murdoch and other speakers. 

While this recession gives no signs of ending quickly or completely, it will end. Advertising revenues will come back.

Better targeting and partnerships are already to show some encouraging improvement in the effectiveness and rates for newspaper digital advertising.

The extent of the ad recovery is an open question. Will auto dealers and retailers resume traditional media spending or see the recovery as an occasion to transfer budgets to other digital formats? I don't know, and I'm not sure the businesses and agencies know for sure either. 

But thanks to the aggressive cost-cutting, even a modest recovery of revenues will tend to drop to the bottom-line. It should replenish profits and leave some money left over to rebuild news efforts and undertake new ventures. 

These considerations may explain why Wall Street has already bid up newspaper shares from the rock-bottom levels of earlier this year to at least a little better. 

Newspaper organizations have diversified their portfolio of products with new offerings in both print and digital formats. Another open question is whether newspapers will be able to command a share of new revenue streams, for example advertising to mobile devices if that indeed develops. 

Realistically, newspapers will not regain the dominance in news or commerce they enjoyed in the latter half of the 20th Century. Most print newspapers will be smaller, more expensive and targeted to an older, educated and affluent audience. But there is room to serve younger audiences and a range of advertisers with alternative products. 

Best case, newspapers and other traditional media will retain a critical role in an expanding and diverse media ecosystem (whose potential other speakers today and tomorrow will be describing). 

To succeed, newspaper organizations will need a sharpened focus on what they do uniquely well and a consistent, high-quality execution of their chosen editorial strategies. 

We need more newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times that cost $2 but reliably deliver $2 of value. 

A happy ending that would be. But it won't happen by Christmas and is far from a sure thing. There remains a hard transitional path ahead to travel for traditional and new media -- and for the vitality and civic contribution of American journalism.

What Great Bosses Know about 'No Thanks'

By Jill Geisler

When I finish writing this column about time management and the art of saying "no," I plan to read it many times. I'm as guilty as anyone of taking on too much and then bemoaning a bloated schedule. Why? Saying "yes" to a request just seems to be the right thing in the moment, or perhaps saying "no" just doesn't come easily enough.

Why do we say "yes" to assignments, tasks or favors when "no" is really a better option? Here are some reasons:

• We're workhorses, proud of our ethic; we say "bring it on, we can handle it."
• We're pleasers; we feel guilty when we disappoint others.
• We're ambitious; we may become more valuable by doing the requested task.
• We're egotistical experts; we like being the best person for the job.
• We're networkers; we believe helping colleagues builds important bonds.
• We're plungers, not planners; we react to requests without full consideration of our calendars.
• We're fearful; with so many staff cuts, so much work and so much pressure, it might be dangerous to decline.

Which of those sound most like your reasons? Figuring out what drives your reluctance to reject a request is the first step toward formulating a strategy for weeding out unproductive activities. Look at your reasons and ask yourself: 

• How has this helped me? 
• How has this hurt me? 
• What am I not getting done in my professional and personal life because I say "yes" for the wrong reasons?

Your strategy for saying "no" should start with a look at important reasons to, in fact, accept whatever responsibility has been offered you. If what you're being asked to do is directly connected to the main responsibilities of your job, if it helps you demonstrate important leadership and success, if it is something only you can and should do, then do it. It's also wise to embrace the request if it provides you an extraordinary learning opportunity, the chance to build valuable social capital with your boss or a key colleague, or offers meaningful service to your community.

If the request doesn't meet those criteria, you have options:

• Delegate. (Pass it on.)
• Collaborate. (Share the task with others.)
• Negotiate. (Offer to do something else that fits with your time and priorities, or agree to stop doing something so you can comply with the request.)
• Decline. (Say some variation of "No Thanks.")

Negotiation is an especially valuable option when it helps you work with the other person to find mutually beneficial alternatives. It's an important skill and I'll write more about it in future columns.

But when the answer is "no," how do you find the right words to decline? You don't want to offend the requesting person, but you also don't want to sound so conflicted that you allow yourself to be talked back into "yes."

One key thing to remember is that you don't always have to give a detailed reason when you decline. Some folks really struggle with this, almost like presenting an airtight alibi to prove their innocence to the authorities. Well, if you are indeed dealing with "authorities," like your bosses or key managers, then provide sufficient reasons that demonstrate both your good will and bad schedule.

For others, you may simply and politely say, "I'm sorry, but I just can't fit that into my schedule" or "I have to take a pass on your request this time but hope I can help you in the future." In the first edition of "Time Management from the Inside Out," author Julie Morgenstern advises rehearsing our "no's":

"If you're not used to it, prepare some answers in advance and memorize them. That way you won't be caught off guard and find the words 'Yes, of course I will' popping out of your mouth ... Practice saying 'I'm sorry, I just can't' and 'No' out loud. Say them with firmness and conviction until they feel natural."

I'm not sure that saying "no" is ever going to feel natural for those of us who gravitate more naturally toward "yes." But for the sake of our effectiveness as leaders, for the benefit of our work teams and our personal lives, it's time for us to get more positive about the occasional -- and strategic -- negative.

As you're building your "no thanks" strategy, is it ever okay to say "maybe" instead? Let's look at that in today's podcast "What Great Bosses Know about 'No Thanks'":

What Great Bosses Know about "No Thanks"

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. You can subscribe to this podcast via RSSor to any of our podcasts on iTunes U. 

What Great Bosses Know about Thanks

By Jill Geisler

Here's a Thanksgiving week question for you: When was the last time you said "thanks" to an employee? Was it within the past day? Past week?

A little appreciation can go a long way. Still, I know from my management teaching that a good number of employees think their bosses are misers when it comes to a simple "thank you." They may be right.

Here are some reasons bosses withhold their thanks. Do any of these statements sound familiar to you?

• Why thank people for doing what they're supposed to do? They get a paycheck, don't they?
• Thanking people is fine, but only for extraordinary work. My standards are exceptionally high and I don't want people to get complacent.
• Thanking people leads them to expect more -- like raises or bonuses. Since that's impossible right now, I don't want to give them false hope.
• I'm not a touchy-feely kind of person. I tell them "If you don't hear from me, just assume you are doing a good job."
• I thanked someone recently and all I got back was: "Just put it in my paycheck." It might have been a joke, but with attitudes like that, why should I bother?
• If I thank one person, I have to thank them all.

If you've said or thought those things, I urge you to reconsider. Appreciation matters more than you think, and I'm not saying this under the influence of turkey. Check the book "First Break All the Rules," in whichGallup Organization researchers studied motivation and management. They discovered that top performers said, among other things:

• "In the last seven days, I have received recognition and praise for doing good work."
• "My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person."

And in "Social Intelligence," Daniel Goleman writes:

"...people recall negative interactions with a boss with more intensity, in more detail, and more often than they do positive ones. The ease with which demotivation can be spread by a boss makes it all the more imperative for him to act in ways that make the emotions left behind uplifting ones."

So there's a business case to be made for thanking your staff. I don't mean glad-handing or gushing -- just your gratitude for their aptitude, attitude or fortitude. That's the bonus over and above their paycheck. It's the way great bosses coach -- by being specific about what they're acknowledging so the staffer will do more of it. It's what makes people want to try things and take risks, because they have a good idea of where they stand with the boss.

There might be some people who don't take "thanks" all that well. They may brush it off out of embarrassment or respond with sarcasm about something they're unhappy about in the workplace. You're smart enough to handle that and not let it stand in the way of doing the right thing for their colleagues.

And if you assume that thanking one means you must thank all, my advice is: Go for it. Look at your team. Who's heard words of appreciation from you lately? Who have you missed lately? What might you say to them this Thanksgiving week that will make them grateful -- for you?

Speaking thanks is important. Writing it can be even more powerful. In today's podcast,"What Great Bosses Know about Thanks," I tell a story about the personal notes I wrote to 100 staffers when I left my newsroom to join the Poynter Institute. I also share an essay of praise called "The Good Ones," which I tucked into each of those messages:

What Great Bosses Know about Thanks

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. You can subscribe to this podcast via RSSor to any of our podcasts on iTunes U. 

The rise and fall of South Florida's newspapers

Broward-Palm Beach New Times
Lisa Rab recalls when the papers were swimming in cash from the real estate boom, then gets into today's newsroom environment. "It seems post-apocalyptic to me half the time," says a Miami Herald staffer. "Overall, you just feel that the air has been let out of the balloon."

What Great Bosses Know about Morale

By Jill Geisler

Your organization has cut staff, salaries and benefits, and it has asked employees to take on more work. If I ask about morale, the answer's obvious: It's taken a hit. But let's talk about how morale is measured and managed.

Morale can be measured across multiple dimensions. Consider the percentage -- high or low -- of employees who say:

• I get satisfaction from my job.
• I feel valued in this company.
• I'm compensated fairly for my work.
• I have a chance to grow.
• People look out for each other here.
• I respect and trust my boss.
• I believe in what we do.
• I think the leadership of this organization is moving us in the right direction.

When a substantial percentage of employees find it hard to agree with a substantial number of those statements, morale is suffering. 

What can you do about it?

First, take note that only one of those morale metrics deals directly with money. Make no mistake, money matters, and I know of no employee who has ever demanded a decrease. Cuts hurt. But they're not necessarily fatal to morale.

That may come as a surprise to bosses who think money changes everything and assume that lowered wages and benefits dramatically impair employee engagement. Here's the problem: If they believe low morale is tied to dollars alone, they'll miss important opportunities to boost job satisfaction in ways that don't take a dime out of an anemic budget.

Here are ten things bosses can do to build morale:

1. Review staff workloads and work distribution.Don't punish the most competent employees by piling work on them.
2. Have a "stop strategy." As a diminished staff takes on more work, bosses should identify low-priority tasks they can stop doing.
3. Increase feedback about what employees are doing well. It should be sincere and specific.
4. Let 'em vent. Make it safe for people to talk about their frustrations or fears.
5. Listen. The time bosses spend with staff costs nothing, but it can have great value to them.
6. Neutralize jerks. Now's the time to finally confront bullies, divas, and slackers about the toll they take on teammates.
7. Endorse fun. Play and laughter, including laughing at the boss, are free. Be a good sport.
8. Share info. In challenging times, people are hungry for information on plans and changes.
9. Talk about what matters. Never miss a chance to inspire.
10. Aim high. Many staffers still crave "stretch" assignments, the kind that make them feel trusted and successful. Great bosses know who they are and what they need.

There's no question that bosses are the key drivers of morale. But isn't there always some degree of grumbling and grousing in every organization? Is it fair to think bosses can provide some kind of "Universal Happiness Care" in the workplace? I'll share a reality check in today's podcast, "What Great Bosses Know about Morale."

What Great Bosses Know about Morale

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. 

You can subscribe to this podcast via RSS or to any of our podcasts on iTunes U.

What Great Bosses Know about Leading a New Team

By Jill Geisler

You're the new sheriff in town. That role change may have come from a new job or a promotion or a consolidation of departments in your workplace. Whatever the reason, you're in charge of a new team.

You have a short window of time to make a positive first impression on your staff. Your actions right from the start can determine whether the staff will see you as just another manager to deal with or as a leader they choose to follow.

Here are six tips to help new sheriffs win over the townsfolk:

1. Tell them what you stand for. Use your introductory meeting with the team as an opportunity to share your values. Talk about what you believe in and what that looks like in practice. Tell them how your values influence your decision-making and your expectations of them. But don't make that introductory meeting all about you, or it could suggest that one of your values is narcissism. Share enough so they get a feel of what it will be like to work with and for you -- and so they look forward to it.

2. Go on a listening tour. Let people know you plan to meet with each person on your team and then do it early in your tenure. These one-on-ones should be their time to share ideas about themselves and the organization. Come prepared with questions that will enlighten your future decisions about strategy. Then really listen. Not good at listening? Read this.

3. Look for buried treasure. Look for people whose talents have been overlooked or who have been miscast in their roles. Ask about skills people haven't been able to fully utilize, for whatever reason. Unearth any assumptions about boundaries or limits that might be holding back success.

4. Score some "quick wins." Are there longstanding employee complaints or internal roadblocks that you can resolve early on? Is there a small but important staff goal that you can help them meet quickly? Doing this demonstrates that you listen, care and can get things done. 

5. Don't fear ghosts. The person you replaced may have been a rock star. The staff may be mourning the many changes that have taken place due to a tough economy, and they love talking about how good things once were. Don't be intimidated by past heroes or happy days. Honor the best of the past and bring it forward as you chart a new course.

6. Build allies. No new boss can go it alone. Your work will be easier if you take time to network among fellow managers. Be collegial, helpful and willing to learn from them. Identify influential employees, those who have earned it for the right reasons, and work to quickly build their trust. When you begin to roll out your ideas and initiatives, this support system will increase your chances of success.

Okay, new sheriff, this should get you started. But I suggest you give a listen to my podcast, too. In "What Great Bosses Know about Leading a New Team," I share four more tips designed to keep you from shooting yourself in the foot.

What Great Bosses Know about Leading New Teams

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. 

You can subscribe to this podcast via RSS or to any of our podcasts on iTunes U.

What Great Bosses Know about Success

By Jill Geisler

As we prepare to welcome a big group to our Leadership for Today's New Managers seminar next month, I'm thinking about one of the biggest transitions these newsroom leaders will make: the way in which they will define success for themselves.

Before becoming managers, employees have pretty clear measures of success -- and they're all understandably self-centered. They may include some or all of these:

• My supervisors view me as a high performer.
• I've been trusted with increasingly challenging assignments.
• I'm a go-to person when the work is important and the stakes are high.
• I'm sought out by colleagues to work on their teams.
• I win awards.

When staffers move into management, they learn that their past personal accomplishments are merely the prelude to a wholly new and daunting responsibility and identity. As managers, their job isn't simply to get the work done the way the organization wants it; the most important thing bosses do is help others grow. 

Permit me to repeat that: The most important thing bosses do is help others grow.

Ask great bosses to share how they arrived at that understanding. They're likely to tell you it was a learning process, one in which they moved from focusing on their past glories to seeing themselves as agents of their staff's future success. They'll tell you how they moved from the initial fear and frustration of dealing with the demands and expectations of their employees, to the genuine enjoyment of constructive interactions with them.

Great bosses come to measure their success by these types of metrics:

• People on my team are doing outstanding work.
• I've helped underperformers raise their game, including some whom other managers gave up on.
• I'm honored when former employees who have moved on to bigger and better things say I helped them get there.
• My staff doesn't feel the need to run every decision past me; we're on the same page about our values and priorities.
• When people on my team win awards, I'm right there in the audience applauding them. It's a great feeling.

So here's my advice to you: Remember that arriving at this point as a manager will take the same dedication you put into being a star performer, only now you are a teacher, coach, mentor and occasional butt-kicker. You know when to slip into and out of those roles for individual employees, doing so at the same time you are tending to a mountain of other management responsibilities.

Success through others. It's the ultimate responsibility and joy of being a manager.

Now, a little candid talk is also in order. Are you worried that the whole idea of "success through others" means you could end up as simply the undervalued caretaker of your team? How do you make certain your own light still shines? I'll tell you how in today's podcast, "What Great Bosses Know about Success."

What Great Bosses Know about Success

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. 

You can subscribe to this podcast via RSS or to any of our podcasts on iTunes U. 

What Great Bosses Know about Public Speaking

By Jill Geisler

When you became a manager, you assumed a responsibility for which you might have had little or no training: the art of public speaking. It's a skill needed to lead meetings, make business presentations, pitch ideas, deliver speeches or teach in workshops. Some managers find it painful; it's foreign territory. Even those who aren't intimidated by public speaking want to know they're doing it well.

So, let me share some tips for you. The tips are drawn from my background as a broadcast journalist and Poynter faculty member, and from the coaching I have done for folks ranging from aspiring TV news anchors to nervous newspaper editors. Here we go:

1. Command comes from comfort. Sitting or standing ramrod straight, with your movements constricted, makes you look tense and timid. Next time you're having a good conversation with a friend, stop and look at your posture. You're relaxed, your movements are unstudied, your gestures are spontaneous. You make eye contact while making important points and break eye contact easily and naturally, mid-conversation. If you have an itch on your nose, you scratch it without hesitation. Great public speakers replicate that comfort. They treat the audience as a friend. We're here together; all's well.

2. Deliver thoughts, not just words. Speakers appear awkward when they seem to be just trying to get the words out in the order they were written, rather than grouping them into coherent phrases or thoughts. Ask yourself, what's this speech, presentation or conversation really about? What's the overarching theme? What thoughts do you want to emphasize and which of the many words you have before you really express that message best? If you're working from a written document, don't just underline words you want to emphasize. Underline phrases as well.

3. Pace, don't race. The object of your talk is not to get through it fast and error-free. The object is to connect with the listener on every important point you wish to make. Some thoughts are best delivered briskly, others slowly. When you begin delivering thoughts instead of just words, you recognize that varying the tempo comes naturally. To practice this, select a favorite book, then get the "book on tape" version. Read along to hear how a gifted speaker varies the pacing.

4. Pause for a cause. Pauses are very powerful. They lead the audience to pay closer attention to what will come next. Nervous public speakers often think of pauses as deadly -- evidence that they are out of control, ideas or energy. But properly placed pauses are wonderful. Think of the late radio broadcaster Paul Harvey. He would pause before the most important words in each sentence, causing listeners to hang on his words. Don't fear pauses; plan to use them wisely.

5. Volume is not emphasis. Amateur speakers often default to raising their voices when they want to emphasize a point. But there are many more tools you can use for emphasis: the pause, lowering your voice, drawing out a word or thought, repetition and, sometimes, raised volume. Know why you are using each tool.

6. Know how you will finish. This is a secret I teach to reporters who want to be better at live, on-the-scene reporting. Think about how you want to end your report. You'll have more confidence -- like a runner who can see the finish line -- if you have a plan for how you'll wrap up. It will keep you from flailing, repeating yourself, or saying "Well, that's it." Instead, your presentation will finish with impact.

OK -- you've read my advice. Now, let's put it to the test. I will use today's podcast, "What Great Bosses Know about Public Speaking," to demonstrate the tips in action.

What Great Bosses Know about Public Speaking

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. 

What Great Bosses Know about Playing Favorites

By Jill Geisler

Should bosses play favorites? Should they give plum work assignments, opportunities for growth, better schedules or personal attention to some staff members over others? My answer is yes, provided they do it for all the right reasons, and make those reasons transparent to everyone in the organization.

The term "playing favorites" has a ring of unfairness to it, no doubt because of all the bosses who favored certain employees over others for reasons that are clearly wrong. 

Here are some of the WORST reasons a boss might anoint a staffer as a favorite:

• You're an employee I hired, not one I inherited.
• You remind me of me; we share the same gender, ethnicity, politics, religion or age.
• You and I share the same outside interests -- things like golf, parenting, fantasy football or travel.
• You and I share the same vices; our stolen moments in smoke breaks bond us.
• You are a talented employee and a me-first bully who has enjoyed kid glove treatment; I don't have the guts to challenge you.
• You're a favorite of my supervisor, who is blind to your flaws; I haven't figured out how to right that wrong.
• You're a world class suck-up and your flattery is irresistible.

That takes us to the BEST candidates for "favorite" status:

• You're a high performer who makes superior contributions to the organization and does so collegially. (In other words, you're not a diva.)
• You're a talented staff member who demonstrates commitment to growth and learning; your work and learning ethic are noteworthy.
• Your talents and performance are exactly what we need to showcase as we're managing change in the organization.
• You're a problem-solver who looks out for the team's best interests.
• You're a boundary spanner, someone who builds bonds across silos in the organization and looks for opportunities to improve the work.
• You're "buried treasure," a staff member who, for some reason, was overlooked by previous managers and deserves an opportunity to finally shine.

Now, here's the tricky part. Sometimes, an employee can fit into both categories. That high performer may also be the same gender or ethnicity as you, the boss. That boundary-spanner may be a bit of a suck-up, visibly sending positive feedback your way more than others. That "buried treasure" may attend your church.

Unless managers make it absolutely clear to the staff why they give certain people coveted assignments, shifts or attention, I guarantee that the rest of the staff will attribute it to the WORST reasons. The manager's respect and reputation will be diminished among staff. The favored employees may be criticized or ostracized by their peers.

Worst of all, bosses who fail to educate the staff about the people they reward miss an opportunity to teach them how they, too, can rise in the organization. Great bosses know there's a limit to the perks and promotions they can offer staffers, so they make the process by which they award them absolutely transparent and the values behind the process known to all.

While I believe it is fine for bosses to play favorites for the right reasons, there are also land mines they should consider. I share some warnings in our three-minute podcast: "What Great Bosses Know about Playing Favorites":

What Great Bosses Know about Playing Favorites

What Great Bosses Know

Poynter's "What Great Bosses Know" podcast is sponsored by The City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. Poynter's leadership and management expert Jill Geisler shares practical information that's valuable for bosses in newsrooms and everywhere. 

You can subscribe to this podcast via RSS or to any of our podcasts on iTunes U.