Avoiding the Peter Principle

Avoiding the Peter Principle

So, one of your supervisors has notified you that he’ll be leaving the area, and you need to select a replacement. Not the best of news, as he’s been one of your most reliable people. Nonetheless, it won’t be too difficult to choose his successor, since one of your top performers just happens to be working in that area. Perfect attendance, a nearly perfect production record, well liked and respected by all, and he shows the sort of maturity you want to see in your supervisory staff.

So you bounce the idea of a couple of key members of your team, and everyone agrees he’s the perfect choice. Done deal! You call the lad in, give hime the good news of his promotion and the attendant raise in pay, and let him know how pleased you are to see him climbing another rung in the ladder.

Over the next couple of weeks, you are pleased to see that production continues without a hiccup, and everything seems to be running smoothly.

Then one day, your HR department informs you that they’ve noticed that attendance in that division has been showing a decline, and that after speaking to a couple of the personnel in that area, they’ve detected a disturbing trend.

It seems that morale in that area is at an all-time low. Three people have been written up since the new supervisor took charge, and there is a general atmosphere of discontent. Two leads have requested transfer to another division, and one long-time employee has left! And production levels are beginning to lag, with more finished goods errors than ever before. This is your first clue of any problems in that area.

You ask HR if they have spoken to the supervisor, and what his comments were. All he had to say to them was that his predecessor had run things very loosely, and left him a mess to clean up, and that all the cliques seemed to have aligned themselves against him and the company. Here’s your second clue. That seems very unlikely, so you decide to speak to the supervisor yourself, and get to the bottom of things.

When he shows up, you tell him you have been meaning to touch base with him, now that he’s had a chance to get his feet wet, and ask him how things are going. Without giving any specifics, he paints a picture similar to what HR had already told you… his people aren’t trying, they balk at every directive, there’s discontent about every little detail… and they don’t seem to be accepting him as their supervisor.

When you ask him what HE thinks the problem is, he can’t give you a solid answer, but he seems to get defensive. There’s your next clue. He may not be able to put his finger on exactly what the problem is, but he has a pretty good idea that it’s tied to him, as supervisor, more than to this people.

So you ask him outright, if he feels comfortable in the position, and if he feels capable of turning things around, and getting the division back to a happy, productive team. And you tell him that since things had previously gone very smoothly, and that his team had seemed genuinely pleased to hear that he would be their new supervisor, then indications are that the decline had something to do with his supervisory style. You tell him you would like him to give the situation some thought tonight, and that you want to sit down with him tomorrow and see what assistance you can offer in resolving the problems.

Hopefully, he’ll give it some honest thought, and be open with you when you discuss it tomorrow. And hopefully, between some counseling, some training, and maybe just some suggested reading material, you’ll be able to help him develop into the sort of supervisor the company needs.

But let’s backtrack, and see how you got into this mess.

You began with an exemplary employee… one that always showed up for work, was on-time, did a great job, was liked by everyone and showed noteworthy maturity. And thinking that you were rewarding those attributes, you set him up to fail.

Assuming that a great production worker will also be a great supervisor makes about as much sense as assuming that a fantastic accountant would also be a dynamite gynecologist! Effective supervision of personnel is as specialized as any other manufacturing skill, and needs development. When we make that sort of assumption, we run the risk of shortchanging the candidate, his workgroup, the company and ourselves. Is there a way to be SURE the candidate is the right person for the job?

No. But there are ways to help them GET ready, before the fact. If you had required that there be someone in the division always ready to step up into the supervisor’s shoes, you could have reaped many benefits. Your supervisor would have had an assistant, to help with the day to day chores of managing the group, and would have also had the luxury of being able to go on vacation without worrying about who would carry his load in his absence. His assistant would be constantly acquiring more experience in handling all the little details, both production and personnel, that supervisors have to deal with, thus helping him develop the necessary skills, AND giving you an opportunity to observe him in action, before throwing him to the wolves. The workgroup would have had an opportunity to get used to him in a supervisory role, making the transition from workmate to supervisor less of a role-change.

I have utilized this tactic in many plants I managed, and have certainly avoided a lot of problems by doing so. I highly recommend it. The fifty cent to a dollar per hour bump you’ll be giving that person to act as Lead will pay off a lot more than it costs, believe me.

 

Socializing Within the Company

Socializing Within the Company

Many companies discourage socializing amongst employees, particularly between managers and subordinates, deeming the only acceptable venue for intra-company socialization to be the company Christmas party. Some even prohibit dating or marriage between employees. I have seen many companies that went so far as to have separate parties or picnics for the managers and the rank and file. Is that really a wise approach?

These people are spending approximately one third of their waking moments together, possibly the most stressful third, but we don’t dare to trust them to get along when the stress is temporarily relieved? We trust them to make decisions and take actions that affect the well-being of the company, but we don’t trust them to act appropriately in their leisure time? I think the companies that implement such policies, formally or informally, are not only selling their people short, they’re also shortchanging the company!

People establish relationships with people with whom they feel a kinship, common interests, attraction, trust or a need. It is completely normal, and to try to regulate that is, in my opinion, not only wrong, but foolish. A manager is expected to make decisions based upon the company goals, sound business practices, legal requirements… a host of different issues. Is it fair to assume that that manager will fail to meet those criteria, simply because he has bent an elbow or attended a party with a subordinate?

I think that on the contrary, some familiarity with the human side of the subordinate gives the manager a broader perspective from which to deal with that employee. Development, discipline, better utilization, advancement… all can be implemented from a more informed perspective, when we know a little something about what makes the person tick. And it’s a two-way street. The employee, having seen the manager from a more personal view, rather than strictly professional, may be more receptive to open communication with them, than if they were simply perceived as “just another suit”.

Obviously, personal feelings cannot be the deciding factor in business decisions. But they are factors, and in my opinion, they should be! Both sides need to keep things on a professional level, but that is expected anyway. Why deprive a team (because supposedly, that’s exactly what they are) of such a valuable tool as knowing something about their teammate? Previously unknown capabilities, motivations and concerns definitely come into play, and it’s much better to be in a position to capitalize on them, rather than do without that information, and possibly even be blindsided by them.

Going beyond casual relationships, and exploring the ramifications of intimate relationships, I feel there is greater cause for concern. In affairs of the heart (or the loins) there are dynamics in play that can be very difficult to deal with. Favortism is one that immediately comes to mind. It is easy to say that your selection of the next supervisor for the division will be fair and unbiased, but when your lovelife is possibly put at risk by your decision, it becomes more difficult to see clearly.

There are two edges to this sword, and someone ALWAYS bleeds! Let’s say you are faced with such a decision, and your paramour is one of the candidates. In an effort to ensure you are not allowing your vision to be clouded by the relationship, you choose the other candidate. This will also demonstrate to all around you that you’re a fair and impartial manager, right?

But what if you actually chose the weaker of the two candidates? Your lover will have suffered a career setback, through no fault of their own. And the selected candidate may not be ready for such a position, and has essentially been set up for failure. Both of them, and you, by extension, not to mention the company, have all been shortchanged.

On the other hand, let’s say your sweetheart is by far the most capable and qualified, and you even seek other opinions, to validate your judgement. So, you put them in the position, and then can’t understand why productivity drops, morale dips, and your decision begins to appear to have been a mistake. Maybe because some in the workforce are certain that the only reason your sweetheart got the job, is because of being your sweetheart. You’ve undermined their credibility and your own, and once again, the company will also suffer for it.

Not exactly a win–win situation, is it?

For that reason, I agree with policies that require that if a relationship forms between two employees, one of them must be transferred to a separate workgroup, to remove (or at least, minimize) such issues. I have worked with companies that had boyfriend/girlfriend and husband/wife employees, and it can be a delicate situation. On a personal level, I recommend against it, but from a point of legality, it can be a very touchy issue. I would strongly recommend consulting with your attorney, before implementing any policy dealing with such relationships.

 

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution

It is inevitable for people to disagree occasionally. We all have our different perspectives and motivations, and our opinions vary immensely. Imagine how boring life would be if everyone always agreed with us (and if that thought appeals to you, then imagine how boring it would be if WE had to agree with everyone ELSE all the time).

Conflict of opinions is healthy and productive. It’s how new ideas are born. New ideas, of course, can easily go unnoticed, in the heat of an irrational debate. So it’s important to keep a lid on our emotions, and an open mind, in order to allow us to spot those fleeting ideas as they go whizzing past.

Between you and another

As an individual involved in a disagreement, our first goal should be to keep the discussion on a civil level. Once we accomplish and maintain that, there will be plenty of time to try to persuade the other party over to our way of thought. But until both parties have their emotions reined in, no agreement can take place.

I realize it’s not always as easy to do as it is to say, but the fact of the matter is, as long as either one of the parties is overly emotional, the discussion will accomplish nothing constructive. So, assuming that you are able to be the first to realize this, and rein in your emotions, then the next step is to defuse the emotions of the other person. In order to do that, you need to understand with which emotion you are dealing. Is it anger? Frustration? Fear? All these are very strong emotions, and must be addressed in different manners.

If it’s anger, it’s usually relatively simple to defuse. One method is to simply dilute their anger by mixing it with understanding. Help them to see that whatever caused their anger may have been an accident, or perhaps caused by a misunderstanding, and express YOUR understanding of why they might be angry. “I might feel the same way in your position…” often has the effect of calming a person down a bit. It lessens the sense of confrontation, and gives them the feeling that you are listening to them and understanding their postion, without necessarily agreeing with it.

If it’s frustration, a similar approach is often successful in getting the discussion back on a constructive path. “I imagine you ARE frustrated… I would be, too!” can have the same effect, and opens the way to explaining some of the external causes that might be creating their frustration, and proposing some solutions.

Fear is sometimes a little more difficult to identify, primarily because most people instinctively try to mask their fear, so as not to make themselves more vulnerable. It often isn’t as obvious as a fear of losing something, or being harmed. It may be much more subtle, such as fear of not being in control, or of being faced with a difficult situation. Since people typically don’t appreciate being accused of being afraid, so don’t call it that – you’ll just make the person more defensive. Better to offer them ways to improve their situation, such as, “to enable you to exercise more control over…”, rather than “to prevent you from losing control over…”. It might sound silly, but believe me, it makes a world of difference, in keeping your audience receptive.

Between two others

Sometimes, as a manager, we are called upon to resolve conflicts between two subordinates or coworkers. With some exceptions, it is usually more productive to do so in the stance of arbiter, taking no side. This allows you to read both sides, and inject some calm into the situation, while simultaneously dealing with both parties, as you would in the previous examples. Of course, there are also situations where one party is clearly in the wrong, and no discussion is necessary, but I think those instances are relatively rare. Regardless, as arbiter, you have the deciding vote. How well your vote is received will be a function of how well you present your case.

The ideal solution is mutual agreement to a common idea, but that isn’t always possible. Sometimes we’re forced to accept a simple consensus. The important idea is that neither is possible without good communication, which by necessity must be non-emotional. Someone has to take the first step to create that communication. If you’re often the one to do it, you’ll find yourself gaining more respect from your subordinates, peers and superiors.

 

Value-Added Service

Value-Added Service

Most of us have come across a situation where a salesperson or customer service representative has been able and willing to offer us some advice that allows us to get more value for our dollar. I’ve even had a salesman tell me outright that it wasn’t necessary for me to spend money on his product, when I could probably do just as well myself, or perhaps get “more bang for the buck” across town at his competitor’s location. That leaves a lasting impression of their honesty and helpfulness, even if it isn’t the sort of behavior likely to ensure their success in sales.

Occasionally, though, we’ll just find someone that just offers us some alternatives that will give us better service, or reduced costs, by virtue of their greater experience in the field. To me, that defines the difference between a professional salesperson and a glorified order-taker. They take the time to determine what is really our objective, and bring their knowledge to bear, recommending the most cost-effective solution, on OUR behalf, rather than just thinking about the commission they can make on the sale. That is the sort of effort that makes me go out of my way to recommend them to my friends and colleagues. And you can bet that the next time I have a similar need, they’re the person I’ll go looking for.

If you’re not particularly computer-literate, and want to buy a piece of computer hardware or even software, it’s logical that you’d seek the counsel of a knowledgeable supplier, to explain what you need to gain, and point you in the right direction. Some salesmen might steer you toward the highest priced item they have that would meet your criteria, in order to gain the greatest commission. But the savvy salesman, one that is interested in SATISFIED customers, would present you with the least costly effective option, as well, and explain the differences in cost and capabilities. He realizes that building a network of truly satisfied customers can be one of his greatest accomplishments. Those customers will return, and before they do, they’ll send several prospects his way.

That is one type of value-added service.

There are other, less subtle value-added services we see all the time – free delivery, extended warranty, better(or free) technical support… the list of possibilities is nearly endless. Such things are typical parts of a marketing program, that are faced with constantly. But when everyone is offering them, they take on less significance, and become no more than check-marks in our comparison efforts… they are expected. Failure to offer one of those items, when your competitor is, becomes a negative mark against you in that comparison.

But very few companies successfully market the more subtle value-added features, mostly because they are usually a service offered more by the individual salesperson than by the company. In fact, if a company does claim to offer such benefits, I think they are often viewed with some distrust. And besides, nobody appreciates the implication that they aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable to make the best decision on their own, even if they might suspect it themselves.

I think it’s natural for us, as buyers, to place a higher value on something that we think we’re receiving extra or free, above and beyond what everyone else is receiving, than we do when it is an advertised extra to all comers.

Human nature, I suppose. But knowing that it’s a powerful marketing tool, it’d be a shame not to make use of it, wouldn’t it?