“How do you involve Edmund in the decision making about solving the problem?” I asked.
“As soon as we have the project specs,” Ruben explained, “when we know the outputs and the deadlines, we call a meeting. Edmund is the supervisor, so once we get into production, he is the one to call the shots. So, he is there, at the meeting. He sees all the elements we see, he just cannot connect them together.”
“And?”
“We have developed a very thorough system that identifies the constraints and keeps them productive. The metrics are easy to follow and the system makes our throughput very predictable. But Edmund fights the system, ignores the system and almost weekly causes a production snafu that could have been prevented.”
“How does he explain the snafu?”
“Usually he manages to jump in and pull the project out of the fire, but not without some overtime and not without putting the project in jeopardy. It’s almost like he is proud of the chaos and being the hero.”
I have been grappling with this question for some time. How does the manager recognize above-average performance without rewarding unnecessary fire fighting? Even my terminology of “unnecessary fire fighting†is an oxymoron; once a project is ablaze, the problem-solver must provide a valuable service. Meanwhile, how would the manager know that the firefighter and the arsonist we one in the same unless he/she were witness to the entire event?
Thus I generally encounter the two extremes:
A. The executives who manage by exception thus undermining order and planning, v.s.
B. The micro-manager who stifles employees.
Perhaps if rewards/recognition were based at least partially on adherence / enhancements to procedures and policies, which I have found are often a good metric for the avoidance of problems, then the Edmunds of this world would hold less sway. At the very least, managers should inquire as to the cause of the mishap before praising the would-be savior. Yet the human element makes it nearly impossible to ignore heroics when considering bonuses, promotions etc.
Are you perhaps suggesting a less “human†system of recognition?
I know: Loaded question and I’m putting words in your mouth.
I think Ruben’s of the world derive their security and pride from the fact that they are relied upon by clients and management for such grandstanding.
As “early stage” front line management employees they are still too tied up in actual production and are juggling multiple priorities. Thus, adherence to a process means additional work for them for which they do not see any immediate benefits. While management seeks reliability, they seek challenge and end up inventing one for themselves.
This rebellion against process might also come because Ruben is forced to do something which exposes his inability or lack of knowledge about some procedure.
They know that they are the ones who is getting the job done and thus they feel that the way to do that should be left to them and not some organizational process. They care about the results and not the process.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have also been agonized by people who care only about the process and not the results.
The only way I have found to deal with the likes of Ruben is to win their trust by listening to what they are saying and then explain why something should be done in a particular way. Most important is to be tolerant to mistakes!
Mukul,
Since my stories are based in real fact from the conversations I have everyday, your insight is uncannily accurate.