Attitudes - Communication Break Down at the management level and Apathetic Employees

[nobileros]

We have numerous issues concerning communication at the management level as well as issues with employees being apateic.

The CEO, president of the company has a "hands-off" leadership style and it is creating numerous problems. In particular, we have a situation where the production manager is adept at identifying process improvements but is also a "hothead" who does not take kindly to those who disagree with his views or more generally those who have backgrounds different from him. He is frequently in conflict with other management staff, and also encourages his staff to do likewise. The CEO has received numerous complaints over the years but has yet to do anything about it. The CEOs attitude is "you have to take the good with the bad with people".

Managers in different positions have developed a self-serving attitude and they no longer working together to achieve goal congruence.

How to deal with these attitudes?

It is affecting the overall decision process as we no longer take advantage of opportunities that present themselves because of this internal conflict.

 

[Atul Khandekar]

Just curious

Welcome to the Cove!

Just curious. Where do you fit in this ...?

 

[nobileros]

I was given a mandate on how to address the strategic and operational issues that this company currently faces to preserve and enhance its competitive position and profitabilty.

As I was in the process of gathering and evaluating information I was confronted with the previously mentioned issues. In order to complete my mandate I must address the internal issues first. If the key players and its employees are not working to achieve competitive position and profitabilty, any recommendations that I make will be useless. Don't you think?

 

[nobileros]

Thank you.


I was given a mandate on how to address the strategic and operational issues that this company currently faces to preserve and enhance its competitive position and profitabilty.

As I was in the process of gathering and evaluating information I was confronted with the previously mentioned issues. In order to complete my mandate I must address the internal issues first. If the key players and its employees are not working to achieve competitive position and profitabilty, any recommendations that I make will be useless. Don't you think?

 

[energy]

I'm also curious!

Originally posted by nobileros
I was given a mandate on how to address the strategic and operational issues that this company currently faces to preserve and enhance its competitive position and profitabilty.

If the key players and its employees are not working to achieve competitive position and profitabilty, any recommendations that I make will be useless. Don't you think?

Like Atul, I was curious where you fall in all of this. You were given a mandate. From who? The hands-off CEO? "Take the good with the bad" Ceo? If that's the case, be prepared for an upstream swim towards the solutions to the problem(s). IMHO, you already identified the problem. Now, it's a case of telling it like it is. Not easy. Mandates start out as something very important. Once the bad news sinks in, your mandate becomes a nuisance to those who do not look inward for possible reasons that prompted them to issue a mandate in the first place. Welcome to the world of the Quality Professional. If I had a nickel for every mandate I was given in my working life that just disappeard like dust in the wind, I could retire in the Caymans next door to Cheech.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Hi nobileros,

Atul and Energy already asked the questions I had, so I'll skip that part. Your problem is a common one, and I've had it too. It's not always easy to resolve either... The question is what means you have at your disposal.

It is affecting the overall decision process as we no longer take advantage of opportunities that present themselves because of this internal conflict.

As this is the case you'll need to get a message through:

• Better cooperation will encance the companys chances of survival
• The company is issuing your paychecks
• Do you need your paychecks?

This may be easier said than done, of course, and I do not suggest that you put it as plainly as I just did, but that's what they need to understand.

As for the CEO, he needs to put his foot down. From your description, it hardly seems as if he's the one actually running the company... Isn't that the root cause? The question is: How to get the message through without getting fried in the process. Tricky... You'll have to consider their personalities...

/Claes

 

[Atul Khandekar]

nobileros
Well, I am not a management consultant! You will get better advice from some of the other members here. But it looks like the 'Hot heads' have to either cool or roll.

 

[Andy Bassett]

An interesting subject, not least because i feel that this situation is the rule rather than the exception. I have still yet to find a high-performing management team that are capable of working together as a team. Maybe i have just been unlucky.

I will throw at you a theoretical solution, and then explain my experience with the theorey.

Over the last 3 years i have one particular consulting contract that could loosely be described as a Company Development Project. At one particular point i defined the need for a new management team, advertised, interviewed and employed some very capble people.

I was able to predict that my next problem would be to get them working together as a team chasing the same goals, and the tool that i chose was a Balanced Scorecard.

Did it work? On balance.... no. Why not....? Here are my thoughts.

The company vision/mission was too unrealistic to be believed or impact sufficiently on anybodies daily work to make them sit up and take notice that it even exists. The Vision (New company direction) was not really accepted by key managers.

The company objectives were not really tied to the vision in any clear manner.

The dept objectives did not really match the company vision/objectives in any tangible way.
Dept objectives were frequently subjective wishes as opposed to objective measurable criteria.

The follow-up was not really consequent enough ie Only 5 meetings were held to discuss the progress during the whole year.

The CEO did not really emphasize the importance of following the objectives enough ie Realising the goals did not influence the managers yearly bonus.

And so on

Was it a complete waste of time?
Not exactly, some Dept Managers had enough pride to try and reach their objectives, these areas have improved, others just spoofed me to keep me quite. But overall i cannot say that it succeeded in making the Management Team work together.

However i am still not prepared to blame the tool, i think the problem lies in the application of the tool.

All the best

 

[Andy Bassett]

Interesting comment Jim

Can you take it further? What do you feel the consultant could or should have done in this situation.

Regards

 

[Andy Bassett]

Well Jim, you may, or you maynot have already understood that I AM the consultant. Nevertheless, ill not get too defensive, which is why i asked for suggestions how to improve the approach.

Not every day is a christmas, but everyday is a school day.

The results were not particularly good, so 'couldnt the management team have acheived this without the consultant'.... was your question. The answer to this explains why, in reality consultants are very often used, rightly or wrongly.

Most of the particpants had had some sort of previous exposure to either MBO or Balanced Scorecards, but alone they would not have proposed this approach, alone they would not have made the effort to put together a structure and alone they would not have the discipline to sit together the 5 times that they did.

Ill attempt a parallel here. We all know that we are more healthy and live longer if we dont overeat/drink and make sure that we exercise regularly. However the majority of us need some sort of external influence to give us the self-discipline to do it. Ie pressure from a spouse/friend/relation or an external event (heart attack for example).

In reality i find it extremely rare that a consultant offers any specialist knowledge that nobody inside the company has. Rather the consultant is used (rightly or wrongly) as a resource to;
A. Provide an external perspective.
B. Provide the push/energy to implement something that full-time mangers simply dont have.
C. Create the image that 'because we are paying this consutlant so much money he must be right'.
D. Implement something from a neutral stand-point without being burdened by the inevitable intercompany rivalry and time-worn paradigms.

Does that sound like BS?.

Regards