Let me apologize in advance for the following::::(


The fact is that for the employees of any company there is only one customer. That is the person who has the authority to hire, fire, reward, or discipline. The person who signs my check is my customer. What I supply to him/her is my skill and my service.

Regardless of what others may say regarding end users needs/requirements/desires, my attitude toward my work and the quality sent to the end user will be controlled predominantly by my desire to satisfy that person who pays me. If the owner/operator declares certain quality parameters are acceptable then they are acceptable for me. If late shipping is acceptable, then it is OK with me.

The end user pays the company and the company pays me. The end user does not pay me, nor can they fire me, or give me a raise or a promotion. Therefore the entire onus for the success of failure of a company rests with the ability of the owner/operator to keep the end user happy. To effectively communicate THE COMPANY’S CUSTOMER’S needs to those who work for him.
The Above is something that has been brewing for a while and I guess I need to vent. It's been a bad week.

James

Let me apologize in advance for the following::::(


The fact is that for the employees of any company there is only one customer. That is the person who has the authority to hire, fire, reward, or discipline. The person who signs my check is my customer. What I supply to him/her is my skill and my service.

Regardless of what others may say regarding end users needs/requirements/desires, my attitude toward my work and the quality sent to the end user will be controlled predominantly by my desire to satisfy that person who pays me. If the owner/operator declares certain quality parameters are acceptable then they are acceptable for me. If late shipping is acceptable, then it is OK with me.

The end user pays the company and the company pays me. The end user does not pay me, nor can they fire me, or give me a raise or a promotion. Therefore the entire onus for the success of failure of a company rests with the ability of the owner/operator to keep the end user happy. To effectively communicate THE COMPANY’S CUSTOMER’S needs to those who work for him.
The Above is something that has been brewing for a while and I guess I need to vent. It's been a bad week.

James

James,

It's hard to tell whether that's something you read somewhere that ticked you off, or your own personal rant (not that there's anything wrong with that). What's been brewing for a while?

Let me apologize in advance for the following::::(


The fact is that for the employees of any company there is only one customer. That is the person who has the authority to hire, fire, reward, or discipline. The person who signs my check is my customer. What I supply to him/her is my skill and my service.

Regardless of what others may say regarding end users needs/requirements/desires, my attitude toward my work and the quality sent to the end user will be controlled predominantly by my desire to satisfy that person who pays me. If the owner/operator declares certain quality parameters are acceptable then they are acceptable for me. If late shipping is acceptable, then it is OK with me.

The end user pays the company and the company pays me. The end user does not pay me, nor can they fire me, or give me a raise or a promotion. Therefore the entire onus for the success of failure of a company rests with the ability of the owner/operator to keep the end user happy. To effectively communicate THE COMPANY’S CUSTOMER’S needs to those who work for him.
The Above is something that has been brewing for a while and I guess I need to vent. It's been a bad week.

James


This is one way to look at it, but is limited to primarily the employee/employer equation.

But, it misses the whole process approach/continual improvement part of the equation. A company, where all the employees hold this view, is never likely to be a leader in their industry. It is a viewpoint which inevitably leads to a decline in performance and market share.

It is not continual improvement, it is continual decline.

James,

It's hard to tell whether that's something you read somewhere that ticked you off, or your own personal rant (not that there's anything wrong with that). What's been brewing for a while?


Just the general frustrations of trying to herd cats. :whip:
Trying to come to terms with a management that says to make things to print, then buys off on out of print items.:frust:
Trying to get ready for an Audit in August.:bonk:
Trying to hang on till retirement.:truce:

Sometimes for your own personal good (and indirectly the company good) you may need to go against the flow. I have many times said that if 8 to 10 years ago I had "done what I was told" I would long ago been laid off as being a not very useful expense by the company. I pushed the envelope, and did even get a formal letter 6 years ago threatening to fire me.

It is personally risky to determine how hard one can push the envelope without it snapping back behind you. But many times we can "get away" with more than we think we can. I do not mean to imply the ends justifies the means. But if you can show you achieved good ends by using good means I believe things can come around. I do like Tom Peter's fairly recent book called "Reimagine" for some thoughts along those lines.

Hope this helps.

Just the general frustrations of trying to herd cats.

Must be some mighty big cats James:mg:

It actually seems more like tip toeing through the tulips...with a pair of lead shoes:( Good luck.

Sometimes for your own personal good (and indirectly the company good) you may need to go against the flow. I have many times said that if 8 to 10 years ago I had "done what I was told" I would long ago been laid off as being a not very useful expense by the company. I pushed the envelope, and did even get a formal letter 6 years ago threatening to fire me.

It is personally risky to determine how hard one can push the envelope without it snapping back behind you. But many times we can "get away" with more than we think we can. I do not mean to imply the ends justifies the means. But if you can show you achieved good ends by using good means I believe things can come around. I do like Tom Peter's fairly recent book called "Reimagine" for some thoughts along those lines.

Hope this helps.

Steve,
I have often pushed the envelope. Sometimes with good results and sometimes not. I will say one thing. It is immensely freeing once you reach the point where you do not care if you get fired or not. And you are right, you can often get away with more than you think you can.

However, I am not convinced that my origional rant does not stand. The company who hired you is your customer. Right or wrong that's the fact. And when it is a small comapny where the owner is hands on, That translates directly to the owner having direct control and impact on daily attitiudes.
Don't get me wrong, the owner is a fine, hardworking person who tries to take care of his customers and employees. It's just that he has grown the company from a pup and still wants to run it as though it were half the size it is. Some of which is good, it limits beaurocracy, some of which isn't since it plays **** with schedules. I try to reconcile these things with the standards and is it any wonder that my hair is grey?

James

Nothing wrong with being a pragmatist.

Fact of the matter is no matter how well you, personally, please your customers your boss tells the company it's OK to give you a check.

HOPEFULLY (but not always realistically) a good relationship with your external customers reflects in your pay. But that's way way way more common for sales folk than quality folk. Which is really unfortunate because I have often spent more time communicating with the customers than the sales rep did.

And as far as internal customers - in my experience it's a rare company that counts that on your review unless it's negative.

And I feel your pain as I am in exact same boat as far as the owner's activity in the company goes. I stepped in to it on purpose with the goal of setting up systems so he can step back and spend his time designing and selling versus making the production schedule look pretty.

The basic premise of your rant is accurate - the boss is your direct customer.

The balance of your rant, though, doesn't think the situation through. Steve Prevette hints at the better view, but I'd like to add my three cents (inflation!)

Just because the customer is an idiot doesn't mean his supplier has to be one, too. I've made a lot of money and glory over several decades by educating my customers to be "good guys" who are real partners. It really is all about "WIN-WIN" in every case. Sometimes, though, the most difficult part is establishing the atmosphere for the education process. It certainly seems like the absolute WRONG time is when everyone is under pressure to deliver a product or service and emotions are running higher than common sense.

The reality is some customers are so mentallly handicapped by their emotions, prejudices, and separate agendas there never seems to be an opportune opening for initiating the education process. Those situations call to mind the gambler's refrain - you have to "know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em!"

It is always better to see to your own mental and fiscal health first before worrying about your customer. Sometimes your own self-interest dictates "going along to get along." Reflection might also dictate that is the trigger to start shopping for a different customer.