Author Archives: Tom Foster

About Tom Foster

Tom Foster spends most of his time talking with managers and business owners. The conversations are about business lives and personal lives, goals, objectives and measuring performance. In short, transforming groups of people into teams working together. Sometimes we make great strides understanding this management stuff, other times it’s measured in very short inches. But in all of this conversation, there are things that we learn. This blog is that part of the conversation I can share. Often, the names are changed to protect the guilty, but this is real life inside of real companies.

The Problem is the Explainer

“We call him, Teflon,” Audrey said. “Nothing sticks. Things go wrong in his department all the time, but he always has an explanation why one thing or another caused the problem. Always something out of his control. Not his fault.”

“Has he ever taken responsibility for any problem in his area?” I asked.

“No, he has never had to. You would think there is a worldwide conspiracy out to get him and foil all his plans. Even when I don’t buy his excuse, he has a backup excuse to replace it. Do you think he is just unlucky?”

“Audrey, sometimes the explanation for the problem tells you more about the explainer than it does about the problem.”

Avoid Schizophrenia

“So, the relationship between your supervisor (Vince) and production (Muriel) is all about effectivenesss. And that relationship is an accountability relationship,” I explained.

Sylvia nodded, so I continued, “What is the appropriate relationship between you, as manager, and production? What is the nature of the relationship for the Manager-Once-Removed?”

“It can’t also be an accountability relationship, because then production would have two bosses. That’s a little schizophrenic.” Sylvia’s head turned. “But the conversation I was having with Muriel wasn’t about production. I was interested in how she was doing as a person. I was interested in how she was adjusting, how she was finding things with the company.”

It was my turn to nod.

Sylvia continued. “As the Manager-Once-Removed, I think it is important to have those conversations. Her Supervisor will talk with her about production, making sure production gets done. My role, as a Manager, is to create the system, monitor the system. It’s important for me to find out the condition of the system.”

Mentoring

“Is it also your responsibility to be grooming your next wave of supervisors?” I asked.

“Yes, and my next supervisors are going to come from my best team leaders. As the Manager Once Removed, I need to be having conversations about career paths and opportunities within the company.”

“And, as a Manager, do you also have an accountability relationship with Muriel’s supervisor?”

“Yes, and I can find out a lot about Vince’s performance as a supervisor by having a Manager Once Removed conversation with Muriel.”

Accountability

“First of all, Sylvia, every company is a real company, even a company of three,” I replied. “As companies grow larger, the structure of how they work together becomes more complicated, for better or for worse.”

“Well, we have a good sized company,” Sylvia responded. “We have supervisors, managers, vice-presidents and a CEO. And we have an organizational chart.”

“So, let’s talk about those relationships and how they work best. A production worker talks to their supervisor. What is the nature of that relationship? What do they talk about?”

“They talk about problems,” Sylvia started. “Production problems, problems with the work.”

“Or successes with the work,” I picked up. “But their relationship is around the work. It’s all about the work. This reporting relationship is an accountability relationship.”

Sylvia nodded.

“Not as a Supervisor, but as a manager, when you have a conversation with a production worker, you are the Manager Once Removed. What is this conversation about? What is the nature of this relationship?”

Accountability

“That’s what Vince objected to,” Sylvia quickly protested. “I felt that it was an appropriate conversation, but when Vince objected, I didn’t know what to say.”

“That’s because Vince was wrong. What is the nature of the relationship of the Manager Once Removed?”

Policy of Engagement?

“He said that I was undermining his authority, that if I had anything to say to one of his team members, I needed to go through him and he would deliver the message. Otherwise, he said, Hands Off.” Sylvia was off balance. “I didn’t know what to say.”

“What did you say?” I asked.

“Well, I told him I was sorry, that I didn’t realize I had overstepped my bounds on his team and that I would try to be more considerate in the future.”

“And how did he respond?”

“He started talking about professionalism and that if I had worked where he used to work, that I would have been written up,” Sylvia replied.

“So, this place where he used to work, was this some sort of policy, that managers could only engage people one layer down in the organization?”

“Exactly. He said that if I had worked for a real company, I would have known that.”

Undermining Who?

“Muriel is a line worker, who reports to her supervisor, Vince, who reports to me. Muriel has been here for six months. I am certainly not her supervisor, but I am the Manager Once Removed for her team. Her team is a very important element of my system,” Sylvia explained.

“What’s the problem?” I asked.

“I was talking to Muriel, just asking how things are going, about how she has adjusted to working here. That’s when the fireworks started.”

Sylvia had my curiosity. “Tell me more,” I prompted.

“Her supervisor, Vince, remember that Vince reports to me. Vince walked by, interrupted us, began grilling me on our conversation. I tried to tactfully excuse Sylvia from the discussion, but she had a scared look on her face.”

“What did Vince say?”

“I pulled him into my office so we could talk in private. He said that I was undermining his authority, that if I had anything to say to one of his team members, I needed to go through him and he would deliver the message. Otherwise, he said, Hands Off.”

The Dilemma in Underperformance

“You may have hired the wrong person,” I said, “but you haven’t figured out exactly what’s wrong. You have a decision to make, with three alternatives.

  • Live with the situation, and continue to complain about it.
  • Terminate or reassign the person to a different role.
  • Redefine the role within the capability of the person you hired.

“You know, I can’t live with it,” Stella replied. “I, personally, have to fill the gap for any underperformance. And I have my own responsibilities. Every minute I steal away to cover for my supervisor is a minute away from my own tasks. I don’t see any way around it. This job really requires someone with a nine month Time Span. Our new supervisor has only demonstrated capability at around two months. I cannot take her under my wing and hold her hand.”

“What are you going to do?”

Who Get’s the Most Out of the Interview?

Stella’s disbelief faded to reality. “You’re right. That’s what I did during my interview, here. I tried to steer the conversation to my best qualities. I mean, I answered their questions, truthfully, but, you know, they didn’t really ask that many. They spent most of the time describing the job, what they expected and how great the company was.”

“You probably got more out of the interview than they did,” I replied. “So, what can we do different?”

“Isn’t it a little late, we already hired the wrong person.”

Preparation for the Big Lie

Stella was surprised. “Well, I don’t think he lied to me, but I guess I didn’t get what I needed from the interview.”

“Don’t feel bad. Most of the people on your interview team didn’t do any better than you. It’s a combination of things,” I consoled. “First, candidates do much more preparation than you do. They re-write their resume customized to your job posting, have others review it, spend time with headhunters who coach them on what to say, and read interview books all designed for one specific thing. To beat you in the job interview.”

A Set-up for the Big Lie

“What do you mean, evidence?” Stella asked. “It’s an interview. If someone says they are up to the task, that they are interested in the challenge, that they really want the responsibility, what more can you get? I mean, I asked those hard questions.”

“Exactly what were the questions you asked,” I wanted to know. “Let’s list out those hard questions.”

“Okay,” Stella started. “I asked if he really thought he was up to the task? I explained just how difficult the job would be and asked him if he would really be interested in the challenge? I asked him why he wanted that level of responsibility?”

“So, you asked him the perfect questions, so he could lie to you?” -TF

Did the Candidate Provide Evidence?

“Your new supervisor?” I asked.

“Yes,” Stella explained. “Everyone on the interview team agreed this was the best candidate, but she’s been in the role for two months now, plenty of time for adjustment and it’s just not working out.”

“And this candidate had worked at this level before?”

“Well, not really, but she said she was ready for it. That’s why she was leaving her old job, not enough challenge in it.”

“This is a supervisor position, what’s the time span?”

“Nine months,” Stella replied.

“Tell me, what is the longest task?” I pulled out a piece of paper to make some notes.

“It’s scheduling,” she continued. “Some of our equipment is very expensive, difficult to get and difficult to move from one job to the next. It can cost us $15,000 just for the riggers to relocate some of the pieces. So we schedule our logistics out six to nine months. And when we schedule it, we stick to plan. Too expensive to do otherwise.”

“And your candidate provided evidence of nine month time span work in the past?”

“Evidence? No, but she assured us she was up to the task.”