Like our readers, we keep our eyes open for business insight on the web. We came across John Warrillow, a writer for the Globe and Mail. He comes with the credentials of a newspaper writer – published author, successful businessman. It’s quite shocking to read his blog. Each post contains a statement that is either obvious or ridiculous. Here is a short sampling of his work.

Golden nugget #1: If you are looking for entrepreneurs, screen out MBAs. Here he states that the best way to hire entrepreneurs is to eliminate MBAs from your hiring pool. He sites a study that concluded that MBAs don’t think like entrepreneurs. That somehow, all of the different programs offered throughout the world produce a bland, unimaginative robot that can only think linearly. If the MBA didn’t see a similar case study in class, he will be helpless. This is like me saying that all dentists make for bad golf buddies or all teachers can’t do their taxes. It’s just crap.

Golden nugget #2: Winners look within for success. Losers look outward for excuses for failure. Well, duh. My high school football coach summed it up in one sentence in 1985 – “Excuses are for losers.” (Thanks Mr. Sekulich!)

Golden nugget #3: Smart people hate it when you ask stupid questions. Here’s another obvious statement. When you have an excellent team, you can’t lead them by always asking leading questions. Even the dullest genius will see that form of treatment as clumsy passive-aggressiveness.

Golden nugget #4: Business plans are a waste of time. Warrillow, in a fine demonstration of tortured logic, describes how he wrote a business plan for a product that nobody wanted and blamed its failure on the time wasted writing the plan. He didn’t test the veracity of his assumptions and found out too late that he didn’t have a viable business plan. He then makes the tremendous leap to say that business planning is a waste of time.

Is John Warrillow our version of....

...this fair and balanced pundit?

Is the Globe using Warrillow’s column to stir up interest like Fox used Glenn Beck’s paranoid rants to stake out new ground on the American political right? It’s either this or they aren’t reading his columns too closely. If their intent is to generate web traffic, it’s probably working. I like reading columns that challenge the status quo, but if you replace conventional wisdom with stupid rules of thumb, have you really added anything to the debate?
Whenever I read something like these blogs, my faith in common sense and logic takes a hit. Thankfully, the comments section is there to restore this faith. An exceptional comment came from the inc.com posting of the business plan blog. Rj, whoever you are, you’re my hero:

“I had no basis for this assumption. I just made it up—which, of course, is the problem with the business plan of most start-ups…”

When Science is a Waste of Time
I believed I could turn water in solid gold by combining it with dirt and cinnamon. I had no basis for this assumption, but I did some experiments and it turned out that it didn’t work. And that’s why scientific experimentation is pointless.
Posted by Rj – 04/14/2011 02:25 pm.

Why do people think that compromise is the best solution? More often than not, it is the worst solution. Here’s why.

I was sitting in on a mediation hearing last week about how to settle an outstanding invoice with a building owner whose lessee went bankrupt. The details of the case don’t matter to this blog, but what was remarkable was the mediator’s approach to a resolution. He didn’t have authority to rule on the case and he wasn’t a legal expert, so he tried to get both sides to compromise their position. The case is still in process, and there might be a deal that both sides will accept. Any compromise will be a long way from ideal for both sides.

At first glance, a compromise seems to be the best way for differing parties to solve their disputes. The trouble is compromise is a poor substitute for investigation. For example, suppose you visit a bungee jump company. When they get you fitted with the right strength of cords, they weigh you with two scales. What if the first one says you weigh 100 pounds and the second one says you weigh 200 lbs? If the jump company operator compromised, you would have gear for 150 lbs. This will make for either a boring jump or the last thing you ever experience.

This guy hopes his bungee cord wasn't selected by compromise.

Another problem with compromise is the parties will soon see it for what it is – a game. Instead of coming to a mutual understanding, savvy participants will make their positions as extreme as possible. This will improve their final results while making them look good because they “moved a long way” from their initial position. If you manage your employees this way, you will be nurturing a litigious and combative culture. What’s your alternative?

One of the best features of TOC is how it handles conflict. It states that there are no real conflicts in nature, only mistaken assumptions. If you focus your efforts on testing the assumptions and eliminating the incorrect ones, you will do yourself a great favour. In the bungee example, the operator could use a known weight to test both scales. They would quickly find out which one (or both) was out of calibration. That way they could fit you with the right cords and give you the precise amount of excitement you paid for.

By using this technique to eliminate conflicts, you will promote a knowledge and information-seeking culture. It also promotes cooperation because both parties are working together to test the assumptions. Finally, it discourages gaming the system.

If we were to use this approach to the mediation, one side would emerge the winner and one would be the loser, so this is not for the faint-of-heart. But for managers courageous and thorough enough, it is a superior way to manage conflict.

As reported by Bob Weekes, the Canadian Curling Association is looking at changing the format of the Brier, as well as their other national championships. They are experimenting with moving to a 14-team system.

• Team Canada, Northern Ontario and separate Yukon and Northwest Territories entries plus one team from each Province.
• The field would still be 12 teams with the 12th-place finisher from the previous year dropping into a pool with two other teams which didn’t make it in playing a relegation round just before the start of the national event (probably at a curling club in the same locale).

The rationale for this is by having Team Canada, you are basically assured of another strong team competing for the title. It will also bring some drama to the end of the week for teams at the bottom of the standings as they try to avoid relegation. Maybe they feel that the returning champion will increase interest in the events, thereby selling more seats, beer in the Brier Patch and sponsorships.
I feel this is akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Here’s why:

The CCA is trying to turn their championships into toxic goose meat.

• One only needs to go to a Brier to see that it is much more than a sporting event. At any game you can see Nova Scotia fans with rain coats and blue noses, Territories fans with their moose calls and Saskatchewan fans in full green. Taking one of those teams out of the competition would put a serious dent in the event.
• At any National Championship, there are usually six teams with a realistic shot at winning with two or three favourites. Adding team Canada would add another favourite. So instead of one or two marquis matchups during the week they would have two or three. I don’t think the organizers would be able to measure the uptick in revenue from this.
• What happens to the relegated teams the following year? Instead of playing for a spot at the Brier, they are playing for a chance to get to the Brier. This will depress interest in the sport where it is most vulnerable.
• What about the total disaster scenario of no host team at an event? Try getting volunteers, decent gate attendance and other revenue when you don’t have a home team in the event.
• By having last year’s champions return as Team Canada, it makes it much easier to repeat. This assaults the record books and cheapens the title of Canadian Champion.

The curling elite have done a good job of whining themselves into preferred positions. Many of these teams already get a bye into their Provincial Finals, but they will try to convince the CCA that having more elite teams will add to a more successful championship. If this is the case, why do they play their Grand Slam events to half empty arenas? Remember when these teams boycotted the Brier for a few years? Nobody missed them. The Briers were great events and the Canadian champions fared well at World Championships.
If the CCA wants to improve things, why not make this a true national championship? Everybody starts on the same starting line. That genie is out of the bottle, but the magic and allure of the Brier has suffered as a result.
If the CCA goes ahead with this change, I predict that instead of a bounty of gold, they will end up with tainted goose meat.

Warning – rant enclosed!
I just got back from a family vacation in San Diego. We spent a week going to the Zoo, Lego Land, Disneyland and Sea World. The experience was full of fun and we made a lot of great memories. This blog is about the trip there, and how our national airline treated us as customers. First, the facts:

• The initial plan was to fly from Saskatoon to Vancouver, then clear customs and fly to San Diego.
• In Saskatoon, the jet arrived at the gate at 7:20 am, instead of boarding at 6:35 am. After boarding, the pilot announced an engine valve problem and he was attempting to fix this by revving the engine. Once this was successful, he announced that we used too much fuel and had to refuel. Once we refueled, we took off at 9:00 am, 2 hours behind schedule.
• Once in the air, I asked the flight attendant about our options, as we would now miss our connecting flight out of Vancouver. She contacted customer service in Vancouver, and told us we would have a rep waiting for us.
• In Vancouver, the customer service rep handed us tickets to Los Angeles and told us to go on the Internet to book a shuttle to San Diego. He told us that our only alternative was to wait until the next day to fly to San Diego. We had under an hour to get through customs and get to the gate so we took the tickets.
• Once in Los Angeles, we contacted Air Canada customer service. They arranged a shuttle to the San Diego Airport. I ended up paying the shuttle driver $70 to take us directly to our hotel.
• When I got back, I decided to send a complaint. After I typed in the feedback on their website, I hit send. Guess what? I received a “Sorry, we couldn’t complete your request” response. I then retyped it (saving it in Word) and resent it. After the third try, it finally got through. The automated email reply said they would get back to me within 10 business days.

Me with a couple of friends I made on vacation.

In my complaint I asked for 3 things:

• Reimbursement of the extra $70 I paid to get to my hotel. A travel voucher is unacceptable, because that presumes that I will book with Air Canada in the future.
• An acknowledgment that giving a customer the choice between the wrong city and wrong date is unacceptable customer service.
• If they wished, they could explain why I should consider booking flights with Air Canada in the future.

I think that the root cause of this mess is Air Canada’s strategy of cutting costs at the peril of customer satisfaction. The jet was in the hangar. The only reason for not getting it to the gate on time is not enough bodies or time to get the jet ready for it’s first flight of the day.  When WestJet has run into problems, they book customers on competitors’ flights to get them where they are going.  This seems to be verboten at Air Canada. When I suggested that to the customer service agent, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language.
All of my hard feelings could have been averted with a simple acknowledgment of the trouble they caused. So far, no apology has been offered.
After this and other experiences with this airline, I infer that their company motto is “Nothing, not even common sense, will keep us from implementing cost cutting.” Compare that to WestJet’s apparent motto of “We will compete on price, but we’ll get you where you are going.” Or “We act like you have a choice in airlines.”
To be fair to Air Canada, they have not responded to my complaint. When they do, I’ll share it on this blog. My prediction is they will send me a $70 travel voucher along with a paragraph or two to explain their commitment to…blah blah blah. If that is the case I will send the voucher to the first person to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope to our mail address.
Misery loves company. If you would like to share your airline horror stories in the comments, I’d like to read them. In the mean time, WestJet, please expand your route schedule so I don’t have to deal with these clowns anymore.

Expert advice is a huge industry. Today, there is an endless supply of experts that promise to solve your problems in the most modern, elegant way possible. Many experts have their clients best interests at heart and work to solve their problems as they appear. Unfortunately, there are experts out there that view their clients as experimental subjects, using them to conduct research. This research doesn’t necessarily align with their clients’ best interest. If you are unlucky enough to hire this type of expert, you are in for an expensive life lesson. On the other hand, the right expertise can be the best investment you ever make. How you can you get the most from your expert?

If your expert wears this button unironically, head for the door.

Here’s how I learned my lesson the hard way. Back in my days at the pulp mill, we had a change in personnel in the bleach plant (the bleach plant turns wood pulp from brown, like grocery bags, to white, like photocopy paper). The new people were technically capable, but new to this technology. Queue our expert from head office. This guy promised that we could save $5 per tonne of pulp (about $1.5 million per year) if we adopted his bleach recipe. He guaranteed the same brightness (degree of whiteness of the pulp) as what we were running. Saving money while keeping customers happy looked to be a great combination. This seemed like a no-brainer. After we took his advice, we found out it wasn’t that simple. First, the fact that this expert didn’t step foot in our mill for the previous five years should have been a red flag. Second, the bleach plant operators openly protested the new recipe. To defend the expert and our decision, we could rationalize that the old management and the operators were fearful of change. That wasn’t the case. So, how did we do?
The results of the change were mixed. We achieved the cost savings and the brightness targets. However, the change was a disaster. This was because the 10,000 tonnes of pulp we made was too dirty to be sold at any price. For those of you keeping score, the sales price of pulp was about $700 per tonne. When faced with this inconvenient fact, the expert told us that bleaching wasn’t the same thing as cleaning pulp. In other words, he was responsible for the savings but was not responsible for the unsaleable pulp. He walked away and declared victory. We changed back to our old recipe, a little wiser from our experience. We later found out that he tried this same project years earlier and was banned from our site.
This is a sad story, but not unique. How can you avoid an expensive, frustrating experience when you hire an expert? Here’s how:
Before you hire the expert, ask for his client list. If he is as valuable as he claims, he should be happy to provide this.

• Make him define your problem and a method to solve it. This makes him think about a customized solution instead of one off the shelf.
• When you hire him, clearly set out expectations and measures for success. If the cure kills the patient, it isn’t acceptable.
• Don’t let your expert pat you on the head and lecture you. You paid for the service. He is your advisor, not your teacher.
• Don’t let him define success. The bad experts will take credit for benefits while ignoring the defects. The true measure is whether or not you are better off from your decision.

This might seem like a strange blog post from a business consultant. I make my living by being an expert. The reason is bad experts make it harder for me to help my clients. More importantly, giving bad advice is bad business. I expect anybody hiring me to hold me to these standards. If you hold your expert to them, you can achieve the results you are paying for.

Carrying on from last week’s blog “Finding Your Competitive Advantage,” this week we look at how WestJet found success by finding its niche in the airline industry.

WestJet is a unique case because it was able to position itself as a company that offered both lower prices and better service than its competitors. That’s something many businesses would like to accomplish but easier said than done. Back in 1996, West Jet took a look at its main competition, namely Air Canada, and found a segment in its market that wasn’t being served adequately by the airline industry. This reflects the importance of knowing your target market and understanding customer “pain” points. West Jet identified this segment as families that travelled with children by a vehicle. This segment was not prepared to pay more than $200 an individual to reduce travelling time. But given an option of flying for less than $100, WestJet realized that these travelers would choose to fly at these prices to reduce the “pain” of driving long distances. But it wasn’t as simple as saying that reducing prices would translate into business success. WestJet’s financial analysis indicated that they would be able to generate a profit at these prices but only if costs were controlled and the company would have to start small. In order to control costs, the company decided to invest in one type of aircraft to serve main cities in Canada instead of investing in different models of aircrafts needed to reach all cities and communities. Although this reduced the size of their target market, it reduced WestJet’s costs and, as a result, they were able to offer lower prices than their competitors. WestJet also decided to formulate a superior customer service plan. They had noticed that the competition did not have great customer service and this was an area that could be improved on. So, in short, that was the company’s plan. Reduce rates and increase customer satisfaction.

At that time WestJet didn’t know whether their business plan would translate into success. We all know WestJet succeeded in its venture but it doesn’t seem like they did anything special. They lowered prices and increased customer service. Sounds simple, right? But back in 1996 they were the only company to realize that the “family segment” was an unserved market in the airline industry. They realized an unmet need and developed a model to serve this need.  They studied their competition and realized that there was room for customer service improvement. They found a niche position in the airline industry and developed a model that would allow sufficient margin for profits. There was a lot of planning involved before the venture began and, as a result, WestJet uncovered a great opportunity. So before you go out and declare lower prices and promise to increase customer satisfaction, remember, take the time to research and understand your target market and competition. It will help you decide how to position yourself in the marketplace and develop the right business model. Good luck in finding your edge!

Before investing in a business, one of the most important things to identify is your competitive advantage. Answer the question “why would customers choose your product/service over competitor offerings?” What makes you stand out from the competition? I’ve found that not enough thought goes into what a company’s real competitive advantage is and many companies are actually operating without one.

Think about your business. What is your competitive advantage? To determine the answer you first need to identify your target market, your competition and yourself.  The following provides a list of questions to help get you started.

Target Market: Its important to understand your market and how you plan to approach customers. Ask yourself the following.

• What market segment are you targeting and why?
• Who are your customers and why would they choose your product/service?
• What are your customer demographics?
• Where are your customers located?
• What are your customer purchasing habits and buying trends?
• What customer needs are being fulfilled by your business? What are your customer needs?
• How often do customers purchase your product/service (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.)?
• What marketing tools will you need to advertise to these customers?

Competition: Understanding your competition is key. Learn from their mistakes, what they do well and how you can differentiate yourself from them. List companies trying to do the same things as you and identify the following about your competitors.

• What is their business model?
• Who are their customers?
• What are their strengths and weaknesses?
• How strong is their brand?
• How well are they performing? (profit margins, revenues, expenses, etc.)
• Would you purchase their product/service? Why or why not?
• What is their competitive advantage?
• What competitor would you model yourself after and why?

Yourself: You need to understand your own business offerings and the things that make your company unique. Answer the following.

• What are your strengths and weaknesses?
• What is your business model?
• What are your company goals and objectives?
• What product/service are you offering and why?
• What makes your product/service different?
• Why do you think you can compete successfully?

These questions will help you determine your competitive advantage or whether you need to rethink your business model. Often, you realize that the things you thought were unique to your company are not really unique. The most common things we hear are “my company offers the best service, our prices are the lowest, or our quality is superior.” But how can every company truly claim this? A lot of businesses think they have a competitive advantage but can’t support it after some research. Take a closer look at your business and answer the questions above. You might just be competing head-to-head with your competition without a real strategy.

Next week we’ll take a look at how West Jet established a competitive advantage in the airline industry.

While working with a client recently, an interesting issue arose. While generating reports, I was given specific instructions on what information was to be shared. More to the point, I was told what was not to be shared. The concern was the information would cast some people in a poor light. In other words, the reputations of these individuals were put before their performance. This dynamic is the enemy of real progress and can be fatal. It harkens back to a bygone era where information was scarce and those who controlled its flow wielded great power. It comes from the wrong belief that the way to become successful is to be infallible. This means always being right and never changing viewpoints. We hold our politicians to this standard, and as a result, we get governance by ideology instead of common sense.

Not a typical mission statement, is it?

This infallibility myth is borne of the era of confrontational work environments, where any mistake or mishap is perceived as a result of weakness of intellect or character. Large companies dealing with organized labour provide many examples of this. When unexpected things occur, the standard reaction is to find and punish the guilty party. This kills innovation because the pain of failure outweighs the good feelings of breakthroughs. A former coworker of mine aptly described this as “A kick in the ass is worth the same as 10 pats on the back.”
When we look at the world of science and technology, we see improvements faster than most of us can keep up with. Scientific discovery doesn’t seem to be impeded by information hoarding or protecting reputations. Why is that? Why does science succeed where many organizations stagnate and fail?

Want progress? Act like these guys.

I could go into a dissertation on the wonders of Six Sigma, Lean and Theory of Constraints, but instead I will point to one of the best shows on TV, Mythbusters. Each week, Adam, Jamie and the build crew test myths from movies, TV, the Internet and popular culture. When they take on a myth, they always state beforehand what they think the result will be. They then build experiments to test the myth. The interesting thing here is they are only right about 50% of the time. Even more telling is how genuinely happy they are when proven wrong. As Adam often says “We have a result.” To me, this shows where science succeeds where many organizations fail.

Without scientific discovery, we wouldn't have computers as nice as this.

So how can you make use of this great advantage? First, check how susceptible your organization is to the infallibility myth.

• When an unexpected event occurs, is the first reaction of your people one of covering their tracks?
• Is your workplace unofficial motto “Nobody moves, nobody get’s hurt?”
• Is your product or service offering essentially unchanged over several years?
• Does your customer service scorecard measure only complaints and defects?
• Are new ideas treated with skepticism or derision?

If you answer yes to one or more of these questions, you may have an infallibility myth problem. This is a deep-seated cultural problem and won’t change overnight. The best way to crack the ice is to stop acting infallible. If one of your ideas blows up in your face, admit to it. More importantly, try to find the lesson in the failure. In addition, deal with mishaps with your employees as failures of the system, instead of personal failures. Finally, look for the upside in these events. You may stumble upon the next big thing for your organization.

Great team, great leadership, tremendous skill and a 1^st place finish in the regular season. We had everything we needed to win the title this year, but we got knocked out in the semi-finals. What happened? We played well but still lost. Sometimes you can’t explain the dynamics of sports and just like in business things don’t always go as planned. So what next? What do we take from this failure? What’s most important is realizing that failure is “part of the game” and not to dwell on the “loss”. Instead it’s important to learn from these experiences, what you did well and what could be done better next time. It’s how you respond that matters.

There are a lot of competitors out there and you’re constantly trying to figure out how to put together the right pieces to achieve success. You have to continually evolve and change as time goes by. For example, the playoffs are a different game than the regular season. It’s a higher tempo game with tighter checking and less room for error. When things are going well, you don’t think you need to change things up and individuals often get complacent. But when competitors come out with new ideas, technologies, or more efficient ways of doing things, it might be too late to respond. You always have to remember. What works now, doesn’t guarantee success in the future.  You have to continually try to improve, even when things are going well. Focus on improving your weaknesses and build from your strengths. You have to be able to adapt. When the competition knows what you’re doing, you need to change things up.

Business, like sports and many other things in life, involves success and failure. After speaking to a lot of business owners, I realized that almost every single one of them had experienced a business failure at one point in their careers.  What was common between each one of them was that they didn’t give up. The lessons they learned from their “losses” were valuable in helping shape their actions in the future. And they didn’t blame their failures on bad luck. There was always something they could have improved on or done differently. They also didn’t make excuses. My hockey team was short players, but that’s part of the game.  There are always things that are out of your control. A downturn in the economy, new competition and many other variables can negatively affect your business but great companies are prepared for these risks.

It’s important not to let a business failure deter you from trying again. I know my father was involved in a business early in his career but after it failed he never talked about business again. It just wasn’t him. He wasn’t a risk taker and didn’t want to risk failing in another business so he went back to his 9 – 5 job. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Business isn’t for everyone and given the high failure rate of businesses it’s reasonable to be cautious. But if you want to succeed in business, you have to realize that it won’t come easy and failing is a realistic possibility.

Over the years, I’ve realized the path to success is often failure and it’s the lessons learnt that are key to success in the future. So keep your chin up guys, we’ll be back next year.

Congratulations! You are about to begin an exciting chapter of your career. Your power and responsibility have surged. Regardless of how much training you’ve received, there is no substitute for experience. I’ve seen a lot of supervisors get off on the wrong foot. Some survive this, others don’t. Here are some of the most common errors of new supervisors and how to avoid them. Like with all safety rules, these tips are written with the blood of the victims.
Mistake #1: Confusing supervisor with tyrant
Many new supervisors get stressed by the thought of being responsible for a staff of several people. One way they deal with this stress is to impose ridiculous rules and controls. These tyrants will demand to know everything happening with staff and require approval of any and all decisions. This is probably the worst mistake, and sadly, one of the most common. It is common because it is caused by fear.

This guy has definitely made mistake #1.

Before supervising, these new people were only responsible for their own performance. Now they are responsible for a whole department! It can also be caused by a misplaced sense of prestige associated with the promotion. When faced with a tyrant, employees react by reducing effort, avoiding the supervisor and sometimes quitting or transferring out of the department. This behaviour can escalate to insubordination and even outright mutiny.
You can avoid this trap by assuming your staff knows what they are doing, or at the very least, are adults who can figure things out on their own. Your job is to manage the department, not the individual tasks. Instead of thinking up rules to control your employees, think of the objectives of the organization. Once you have established this, present issues to your employees and get them to help you solve them. I guarantee they will come up with better, more innovative answers that you will. In addition, you will break through the resistance they will have for your “half-baked ideas.” Just be sure to give credit where it is due.
Mistake #2: Doing everybody’s work
Many employees are promoted because they were really good at their jobs. When they become responsible for a department, a natural reaction is to do or revise the work of all their employees. This comes from their best intentions for the company. They want all the work of the department to be to their personal standard. The troubles arise from the fact that time and energy are limited, and supervisors that do this become bottlenecks. In addition, employees will reduce employee output because they will rightly assume that any mistakes will be caught.
The way to avoid mistake #2 is to take a long-term view of employee work. Sure, all workers were not created equal and there will always be errors to deal with. If you share these issues as teaching opportunities, you will get employees to take ownership over their output. If you manage your employees’ performance this way, you will move towards your department’s long-term goals of higher output and quality.  Again, regardless of your energy and talent, you cannot out-perform your entire department.  Your job is now to get the best performance from your employees.

This supervisor is guilty of making mistake #1, but nobody could accuse him of mistake #2.

Mistake #3: Being a pushover
Many new supervisors try to avoid mistake #1 by trying to be friends with the staff and not rocking the boat. Mistake #2 can sometimes result from this. Supervisors promoted from within the ranks  are susceptible to this. In addition to being weak with employees, supervisors can face undue pressure from managers or other supervisors. You may be asked by a manager to discipline an employee based on the manager’s dislike for them or an old dispute. While this mistake doesn’t have the problem of pitting the employees against you, if you are a pushover, you aren’t doing the job you were given. If you don’t manage your staff, why does the company need a supervisor at all?
Mistake #3 is intellectually easy to avoid but emotionally difficult. Nobody wants to discipline his or her former peers, but sometimes the job requires this. You must be principled when you do this. Employees realize that there are parts of a supervisor’s job that aren’t pleasant. Many of them have passed up promotions because they don’t want to deal with the tough job of supervision. As long as you take action based on the principles of the organization, you will gain your employees’ respect, if not their total agreement. When assigning tasks, tell your employee what needs to be done instead of asking them if they feel like helping out. In dealing with the manager that wants to use your proxy to settle their score, remember that the employees report to you, not the manager. If he has a legitimate issue, then deal with it. If not, remember, just because the manager has a problem doesn’t mean that you have one.
If you are able to avoid these three mistakes, you will be in a better position to succeed than the vast majority of new supervisors. This should give you enough time to learn your new role and get really good at it.  Good luck!