Jim Wynne
10th June 2006, 01:21 PM
This is from my Common Sense Quality blog, and I thought it was worth sharing here:
I was recently browsing through a fascinating book called Found, which is a compilation of odds and ends--mostly written notes, letters and lists--that people have happened upon in their daily travels. Highly recommended.
One thing I saw in the book piqued my interest, because it reminded me of the worst manager I ever worked for, and the ridiculous stir he caused when he allowed his own bias and paranoia to inform his approach to problem solving. Both are good examples of how not to manage people.
First the Found find: it is a printed note, probably posted on a company bulletin board and/or distributed to coworkers, about what one manager found on her way in the door one morning:This morning I found a banana skin in the middle of the front doorway, which appears to have been purposely placed there. This could have been a hazard for anyone walking through the doorway and could have caused someone to fall and hurt him- or herself.
If it is found out who did this, we will take action against the person responsible for endangering the lives of others (whether intentional or not). Be considerate of your neighbors and clean up after yourself. Don't leave your trash in areas where it can pose a hazard to other people.
Please contact me if you have any information regarding who might have done this.
Lilllian 5/5/03
The first thing I thought after reading the notice was that if Lillian worked for me, this posting would constitute all of the evidence I'd need to determine that she should not be in a position of responsibility. More about that after I tell the story about my favorite bad manager.
Oddly enough, the bad manager was hired by one of my favorite managers.
Jack was a VP of operations in a medium-sized job shop dealing with a highly specialized and technical commodity for a company that was recognized as the best at what it did. He had worked himself up from being an hourly production worker, and he was intimately familiar with the machines, the customers, and all of the potential problems that might arise. He was highly regarded by all who worked for him, and was never too big to pitch in and help when things got busy, or when there was a perplexing problem out on the production floor.
My first encounter with him came when I had been with the company only a week or so, and there was a big order for an important customer that need to get out the door ASAP. While the primary work had been done, there was still testing to do, and I found myself with a pile of samples, very little time, and and very little experience in the job at hand. Jack came into the lab and saw me running around like the proverbial headless chicken and said, "You look like you could use another set of hands. Tell me what you need for me to do and I'll help you get this done."
It was remarkable for a couple of different reasons. First, the obvious--that the VP was willing to do more than sit in his office and tell everyone else to hurry up. But he also realized that I was inexperienced, and knew that the best learning happens under the gun, so rather than just pushing me to the side and doing the work with me assisting, he actually helped, and offered good advice as we went along. In the end, the job was done on time, I learned something, and Jack had one more person he could count on when things got crazy.
After I had been with the company for a year or so, it was decided that Jack himself need help, and he hired a plant manager, who became my boss. George was an officious little snot who had significant industry experience but was completely clueless when it came to dealing with people. He was the ultimate micromanager, and wasn't happy unless he was interfering with something that didn't require his involvement. Everyone did everything the wrong way, according to George, and it wasn't long before the walls and bulletin boards were festooned with his little threatening do-this-don't-do-that notices.
Jack had been made aware by more than one person that George was causing more problems than he was solving, and reportedly told one manager that he was aware that a mistake had been made, and it would be resolved one way or another in the near future. In the meantime, George was good enough to make a blunder so egregious that Jack had the opportunity he was waiting for.
In the quality department we would have morning meetings of 15 minutes or so every day. The idea was to communicate changing priorities--it was a job shop, after all--and bits of company news. One morning George himself made an appearance with some unsettling news. It seemed that someone had found some footprints on a toilet seat in the production area washroom, and it seemed clear (at least to George) that someone--a filthy pervert--had been standing on the toilet seat and peering over the top of the divider at his neighbor in the next stall. George let us know, in no uncertain terms, that if the offender was identified he would be dealt with severely, as would anyone who had knowledge of the pervert's identity and didn't come forward with it.
A similar message had been delivered to all of the other departments, from IT to Accounts Receivable to Sales and Marketing--there was a pervert in the building--be on the lookout!
The "incident" had all the trappings of an urban legend--there was something that just didn't smell right about it. Of course, it was the subject of water-cooler discussions all day, with people offering hushed speculations about who the pervert might be, to others wondering if George had lost his mind.
I decided to do a little detective work.
First, I was able to ascertain that the central feature of the story was true. Someone had indeed found footprints on the toilet seat, and reported his finding to the production manager, whom I spoke with. He said (proudly) that it was he who had first developed the pervert theory, as there seemed to be no other reason for anyone to stand on the toilet seat. I asked him if he could show me the stall where the footprints were found. We went into the washroom, which also served as a locker room for the production workers, and he showed me the stall.
There was nothing on the walls above the toilet that someone might have been reaching for, and no sign of any graffiti which the offender might have been scrawling (as a reason for standing on the toilet). I asked which direction the footprints were facing, and was told that they were facing the wall behind the toilet, and that there were two distinct impressions, left and right. I had all the information I needed--there was an obvious answer, and it was about to be serendipitously demonstrated.
As we left the area where the stalls were and entered the locker room, there was a production worker who had arrived late and was donning his work clothes. The nature of the job was that there were acids and chemicals and other noxious materials being sloshed about, so the production workers all wore rubber boots. As the production manager and I paused in the locker room to discuss what we had just seen in the stall, the worker was pulling on his boots. There was a long, flat bench in front of the lockers, and after the boots were on, he put his left foot up on the bench and tucked the cuff of his pants leg into his boot, then did the same thing with the right. He left two distinct footprints on the bench.
I showed the footprints to the production manager, who had had his back to the worker getting dressed. "I guess there must have been a pervert in here, too," I said. Of course, I might have been wrong--it could have been someone tying his shoes--but it was clear that there was a simple and far less sinister explanation for the footprints on the toilet seat. The production manager looked at the footprints, quickly realized what had probably happened, and said, "Oh f***."
The production manager immediately let George know what we had found, and suggested that he let everyone know that a mistake had been made. True to good micromanager form, though, George was having none of it. Instead of apologizing and letting everyone know that a false alarm had been raised, George issued a memo saying that in addition to terminating any perverts who might be identified, people who failed to clean up after themselves in the washrooms would be disciplined.
George was gone within the month.
Lillian, the micromanager who got all in a froth about the banana peel, made a couple of unnecessary assumptions. Without any apparent evidence, she surmised that the skin "...appears to have been purposely placed there." This from the fact, one assumes, that the banana peel was in the middle of the doorway. Of course the fact that it might have been innocently dropped there by someone who had eaten the banana in his car on the way to work, and then was fumbling stuff he was carrying as he tried to open the door, never occurred to her, or the idea that a raccoon might have left it there, or perhaps someone carrying something out of the building. No, someone was trying to hurt somebody! We won't tolerate it!
Also notice that Lillian says "...we will take action...whether [the banana peel's presence] was intentional or not." If you accidentally dropped something, and were completely unaware that you had done so, you will be punished!
Lillian and George both broke a couple of the cardinal rules of management:
In solving a problem, make sure before invoking the fix that your solution doesn't create an equal or worse problem than the original.
The simplest answer that works is probably the best answer.The second is known as "Occam's Razor"--do not multiply entities unnecessarily. There were simple and easily-divined answers to why there were footprints on the toilet and a banana peel in the doorway. Instead, the two managers concocted wild fantasies about perverts and reckless practical jokers, apparently as a way to flex their managerial muscles and let everyone know who was in charge.
I contend that both incidents were prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and all the evidence needed to send both managers packing. There is simply no known cure for the types of personality defects that result in such egregious decision making. In George's case, Jack was perceptive enough to realize that, and George was allowed the opportunity to hoist himself on his own petard. My guess is that the people who work for Lillian probably weren't as lucky, but we can hope, I guess. Allowing bad managers to go on managing badly indefinitely sends a sure sign to employees that upper management isn't interested in making things better, and nothing will ever work as well as it might so long as people like George and Lillian are in charge of anything more important than taking out the trash.
I was recently browsing through a fascinating book called Found, which is a compilation of odds and ends--mostly written notes, letters and lists--that people have happened upon in their daily travels. Highly recommended.
One thing I saw in the book piqued my interest, because it reminded me of the worst manager I ever worked for, and the ridiculous stir he caused when he allowed his own bias and paranoia to inform his approach to problem solving. Both are good examples of how not to manage people.
First the Found find: it is a printed note, probably posted on a company bulletin board and/or distributed to coworkers, about what one manager found on her way in the door one morning:This morning I found a banana skin in the middle of the front doorway, which appears to have been purposely placed there. This could have been a hazard for anyone walking through the doorway and could have caused someone to fall and hurt him- or herself.
If it is found out who did this, we will take action against the person responsible for endangering the lives of others (whether intentional or not). Be considerate of your neighbors and clean up after yourself. Don't leave your trash in areas where it can pose a hazard to other people.
Please contact me if you have any information regarding who might have done this.
Lilllian 5/5/03
The first thing I thought after reading the notice was that if Lillian worked for me, this posting would constitute all of the evidence I'd need to determine that she should not be in a position of responsibility. More about that after I tell the story about my favorite bad manager.
Oddly enough, the bad manager was hired by one of my favorite managers.
Jack was a VP of operations in a medium-sized job shop dealing with a highly specialized and technical commodity for a company that was recognized as the best at what it did. He had worked himself up from being an hourly production worker, and he was intimately familiar with the machines, the customers, and all of the potential problems that might arise. He was highly regarded by all who worked for him, and was never too big to pitch in and help when things got busy, or when there was a perplexing problem out on the production floor.
My first encounter with him came when I had been with the company only a week or so, and there was a big order for an important customer that need to get out the door ASAP. While the primary work had been done, there was still testing to do, and I found myself with a pile of samples, very little time, and and very little experience in the job at hand. Jack came into the lab and saw me running around like the proverbial headless chicken and said, "You look like you could use another set of hands. Tell me what you need for me to do and I'll help you get this done."
It was remarkable for a couple of different reasons. First, the obvious--that the VP was willing to do more than sit in his office and tell everyone else to hurry up. But he also realized that I was inexperienced, and knew that the best learning happens under the gun, so rather than just pushing me to the side and doing the work with me assisting, he actually helped, and offered good advice as we went along. In the end, the job was done on time, I learned something, and Jack had one more person he could count on when things got crazy.
After I had been with the company for a year or so, it was decided that Jack himself need help, and he hired a plant manager, who became my boss. George was an officious little snot who had significant industry experience but was completely clueless when it came to dealing with people. He was the ultimate micromanager, and wasn't happy unless he was interfering with something that didn't require his involvement. Everyone did everything the wrong way, according to George, and it wasn't long before the walls and bulletin boards were festooned with his little threatening do-this-don't-do-that notices.
Jack had been made aware by more than one person that George was causing more problems than he was solving, and reportedly told one manager that he was aware that a mistake had been made, and it would be resolved one way or another in the near future. In the meantime, George was good enough to make a blunder so egregious that Jack had the opportunity he was waiting for.
In the quality department we would have morning meetings of 15 minutes or so every day. The idea was to communicate changing priorities--it was a job shop, after all--and bits of company news. One morning George himself made an appearance with some unsettling news. It seemed that someone had found some footprints on a toilet seat in the production area washroom, and it seemed clear (at least to George) that someone--a filthy pervert--had been standing on the toilet seat and peering over the top of the divider at his neighbor in the next stall. George let us know, in no uncertain terms, that if the offender was identified he would be dealt with severely, as would anyone who had knowledge of the pervert's identity and didn't come forward with it.
A similar message had been delivered to all of the other departments, from IT to Accounts Receivable to Sales and Marketing--there was a pervert in the building--be on the lookout!
The "incident" had all the trappings of an urban legend--there was something that just didn't smell right about it. Of course, it was the subject of water-cooler discussions all day, with people offering hushed speculations about who the pervert might be, to others wondering if George had lost his mind.
I decided to do a little detective work.
First, I was able to ascertain that the central feature of the story was true. Someone had indeed found footprints on the toilet seat, and reported his finding to the production manager, whom I spoke with. He said (proudly) that it was he who had first developed the pervert theory, as there seemed to be no other reason for anyone to stand on the toilet seat. I asked him if he could show me the stall where the footprints were found. We went into the washroom, which also served as a locker room for the production workers, and he showed me the stall.
There was nothing on the walls above the toilet that someone might have been reaching for, and no sign of any graffiti which the offender might have been scrawling (as a reason for standing on the toilet). I asked which direction the footprints were facing, and was told that they were facing the wall behind the toilet, and that there were two distinct impressions, left and right. I had all the information I needed--there was an obvious answer, and it was about to be serendipitously demonstrated.
As we left the area where the stalls were and entered the locker room, there was a production worker who had arrived late and was donning his work clothes. The nature of the job was that there were acids and chemicals and other noxious materials being sloshed about, so the production workers all wore rubber boots. As the production manager and I paused in the locker room to discuss what we had just seen in the stall, the worker was pulling on his boots. There was a long, flat bench in front of the lockers, and after the boots were on, he put his left foot up on the bench and tucked the cuff of his pants leg into his boot, then did the same thing with the right. He left two distinct footprints on the bench.
I showed the footprints to the production manager, who had had his back to the worker getting dressed. "I guess there must have been a pervert in here, too," I said. Of course, I might have been wrong--it could have been someone tying his shoes--but it was clear that there was a simple and far less sinister explanation for the footprints on the toilet seat. The production manager looked at the footprints, quickly realized what had probably happened, and said, "Oh f***."
The production manager immediately let George know what we had found, and suggested that he let everyone know that a mistake had been made. True to good micromanager form, though, George was having none of it. Instead of apologizing and letting everyone know that a false alarm had been raised, George issued a memo saying that in addition to terminating any perverts who might be identified, people who failed to clean up after themselves in the washrooms would be disciplined.
George was gone within the month.
Lillian, the micromanager who got all in a froth about the banana peel, made a couple of unnecessary assumptions. Without any apparent evidence, she surmised that the skin "...appears to have been purposely placed there." This from the fact, one assumes, that the banana peel was in the middle of the doorway. Of course the fact that it might have been innocently dropped there by someone who had eaten the banana in his car on the way to work, and then was fumbling stuff he was carrying as he tried to open the door, never occurred to her, or the idea that a raccoon might have left it there, or perhaps someone carrying something out of the building. No, someone was trying to hurt somebody! We won't tolerate it!
Also notice that Lillian says "...we will take action...whether [the banana peel's presence] was intentional or not." If you accidentally dropped something, and were completely unaware that you had done so, you will be punished!
Lillian and George both broke a couple of the cardinal rules of management:
In solving a problem, make sure before invoking the fix that your solution doesn't create an equal or worse problem than the original.
The simplest answer that works is probably the best answer.The second is known as "Occam's Razor"--do not multiply entities unnecessarily. There were simple and easily-divined answers to why there were footprints on the toilet and a banana peel in the doorway. Instead, the two managers concocted wild fantasies about perverts and reckless practical jokers, apparently as a way to flex their managerial muscles and let everyone know who was in charge.
I contend that both incidents were prima facie evidence of gross incompetence, and all the evidence needed to send both managers packing. There is simply no known cure for the types of personality defects that result in such egregious decision making. In George's case, Jack was perceptive enough to realize that, and George was allowed the opportunity to hoist himself on his own petard. My guess is that the people who work for Lillian probably weren't as lucky, but we can hope, I guess. Allowing bad managers to go on managing badly indefinitely sends a sure sign to employees that upper management isn't interested in making things better, and nothing will ever work as well as it might so long as people like George and Lillian are in charge of anything more important than taking out the trash.
