Ruben was stumped. “You are right. Just because we give Edmund a new title, doesn’t mean he is going to change his ways.”

“Edmund will always be Edmund, and we have to redefine his role. It’s not a matter of giving him new rules not to do this or not to do that. You have already tried that in his role as supervisor. As Lead Technician, what will be his new goals? How will you re-direct him?”

“It sounds obvious,” Ruben replied. “It starts with his job description.”

I nodded affirmative. “This is critical fundamental stuff. It’s the stuff you ignore because it sounds so simple. It’s the stuff you ignore that gets you in trouble. Stuff like setting goals, performance standards and holding people accountable for performance.”

“I think I have a job description around here that might work,” Ruben hoped.

“Why don’t you start from scratch. As the manager, you have time span goals of approximately one year. Your annual plan has stuff in it that you are held accountable to deliver this year, and next year. If you had a supervisor, which Edmund isn’t, you would drive some of those goals down to that level, in time span appropriate chunks. For the time being, you are going to have to step into that role, review those supervisor outputs and determine the time span appropriate goals for your new Lead Technician.”

Ruben was quiet.

“Look, do you want to lose Edmund?” I asked.

“No way,” Ruben replied. “He’s a great technician.”

“Then you have some management work to do.”

“Our system creates predictability,” Ruben explained. “It creates predictability without stress. It allows us to do our maintenance at the best times, allows us to properly inspect our raw materials, test our setups accurately. Everything runs.”

“What are you going to do with Edmund?” I asked.

“He should never have been promoted to supervisor. He is a great technician, a great operator, our go-to guy. We don’t want to lose Edmund, but he cannot continue as supervisor.”

“What are you going to do with Edmund?” I repeated.

“I am going to assign him to a new role called Lead Technician. He won’t like it, but right now, he won’t quit. The job market is too thin.”

“How are you going to keep him from screwing things up, just because he has a new title?”

“So, in your mind, Edmund is not a hero?” I prodded.

Ruben shook his head. “No, and what’s maddening is that Edmund, as a supervisor, keeps describing his behavior as results oriented. It’s all about the results, he says. So, maybe he delivers, but there are body bags all over the place.”

“So, notwithstanding the results, how would you describe his effectiveness, as a supervisor? Thumbs up? Or thumbs down?”

Ruben laughed. “You know, that’s it. Effectiveness. If I can judge his effectiveness, it’s thumbs down. A supervisor is not effective when he ignores the metrics, skips steps in the process, then works overtime to save the day when the system breaks down.”

“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.”

“He resists everything,” Ruben explained. “We cover the same solutions to the same problems. At the time, Edmund finally agrees, but I sense, he agrees only because he can’t argue the logic. He goes along with the solution, but two weeks later, the same problem pops up and we start all over again.”

“So, you have to step in and it takes up your time?” I asked.

“Worse than that. It’s almost underhanded. Behind the scenes, it’s like he wants the solution to fail. He doesn’t openly sabotage the new method, and I haven’t caught him bad-mouthing the process. Sometimes, it’s just the way he rolls his eyes in the meeting.”