hi cove
thank to make me happy because of your reply
when i proposed this question, i didn't want to see it from an far angle from the interest of the company,as well as this is the reality of our time.
your exposure of the womp is just great and i liked it a lot wes bucey, you got me wes because from these that you exposed come my confusing : as well as the commitment of all employees in the company is a condition to get this positive Womp and this womp is related to these conditions that you exposed, why the company sometimes ignore it and try to get the result and benefit as fast as possible and aren't aware enough about the consequence of their lack of attention : Iwould give some exmples
- for exemple the Infighting between responsibles and departements is know by the top management and it is just ignored it even sometime it is cost lot of money.
- I saw very important employees and almost irreplaceable resigned from their position but even this, the organisations keep stress the similar employeeor just to don’t give them the reward that he deserve it and of course it was very easy for these employees to find another opportunity eslewhere!
-Come back to the point that Graig raised. Is it common in the employee's mind to say "I’m just going to do my daily working hours" ? or they are enough committed to outstand this idea and give the best thing that they can.
- one Case : employee got some NC about his behave and all responsibles are aware of this, they resolve it and it can occur again which mean that this employee do it not because he thinks it should be like this but it is just in order to make happy the boss and his feeling is : that it is very additional manner and there not really need, !!!!!!!!!!! And if one visitor came from the back office, this is the managers or responsible who would call these employee to ask him to be aware because he will will get control. And later the managers were so happy that the visitor is very amazed about how every thing is perfect!!
- And relating to this, it is common in the view of people that as worker, they got carrier plan and seeking of the value into their commitment to their company that they can get from. and if yes, is it accepted by organisation or no ?
I mean it is great to be involved in the company's goal and participate in this womp that the company can show, but in my opinion, it will be better and kept in the same trend if this employee have a career plan and see that his daily task is going somewhere and give him the opportunity to improve himself and progress into the company. Aren’t you agree?
i can bring a lot of example, but see, i don't inderstand the top managment of several company when they lost many and many of their staff and the critical ones even they are aware that it would be difficult to replace them because the similar graduated person and above all experienced one is rare in the work market and it would cost them lot of money to bring a new guy, just gradueted and give him lot of training and spend lot of time to make this new employee in the same level than his previous fellow !
How any company can stand this kind of result and where is your womp wes bucey there ?
What is the common mind of the workers there ? in additional income that all of us are aware about, what are you seeking of ? do you got a career plan? and i'm not speaking of you great committed persons but about the people around you, in the street, in the country, ....etc
and this bring me to antother point :
the offshoring ! this is the fashion now, offshoring the organisation function to Asia, Africa... so mainly to low cost areas which a benefit to these countries as well as this is opportunity to resole their problem of unemployment
but are the organisation transfer too the same corporate culture to these areas in the same way or they take into the account the local cultural ? i see in several companies that they take this local culture in consideration but what this realy mean ? is the deming's advices is respected and in case of not is that got an impact to this womp ?
i'm not taken the expenditure of the weak people
, i just want to inderstang if it has no negative result if the corporate culture is just focued in the benefit and not taking account of this wes conditions womp ??
sorry for the late, during the week , i'm usualy away of home....
but i'm waiting your feedback and nice week end
Thanks for taking the time to read my often long and winding narratives. I bet the language barrier makes it doubly hard.
Let's talk about WOMP, both positive and negative WOMP.
For organizations, the primary concern is to have positive WOMP among customers, because without customers, the organization ceases to exist. However, positive WOMP among current and prospective employees is also very important. If the employees are not having a good experience, they communicate that to each other and to prospective employees and soon those who are able to move to an organization with better work environment (physical, emotional, and psychological) do so, leaving only less capable and more desperate workers. In almost no time, employee turnover and general lack of motivation and initiative are reflected in quality of goods and services reaching customers and those customers able to change suppliers do so, often touching off a mass exodus of other customers. Thus, existing positive WOMP among customers can be quickly eroded by negative WOMP among employees. Therefore, it makes sense to provide a work experience for employees that leads to positive WOMP - employees eager to tell others what a great place xyz company is to work for.
THE REAL QUESTION:
why the company sometimes ignore it and try to get the result and benefit as fast as possible and aren't aware enough about the consequence of their lack of attention
Yes. This is a sad truth! Understand this – it is individual managers, NOT the “company” who do not understand even though they may be aware of the consequences. There may very well be individual managers who do understand, but FEAR [of being different] keeps them from speaking out or taking action to spread information and give empowerment to employees below them on the status level. Without that information and without empowerment to take action, the lower status employees will always be limited in being able to generate positive WOMP for the organization.
Let’s talk about the FEAR which those managers feel and how (if at all) that FEAR can be reduced to spur those managers to move forward and benefit themselves as well as the organization and other employees.
Often, especially in countries other than the USA, there is a social structure (culture) which has a long tradition of making it nearly impossible for a person to move up in status
(called “class” or “caste” in some societies) – the FEAR of those in the higher status is they will be displaced by newcomers from the lower status and even find themselves reduced in status.
This certainly happens in revolutions where the ruling class is overthrown by the lower class and, because of their smaller numbers, may lose not only status, but their property and even their lives.
This FEAR of the lower status folks is fueled by the realization that it is ONLY “knowledge” and not “ability” which separates the upper and lower class. Coupled with the power to keep the lower class from gaining knowledge, the fearful upper class jealously guards its own benefits and refuses to see in the long term that EVERYONE can benefit if the entire organization benefits.
It doesn’t matter whether the organization is a manufacturing plant or an entire country, the principle remains the same – when EVERYONE has an opportunity to advance, there is more motivation to stick around and work on that advancement instead of just waiting around for a chance to escape.
A natural result of working on that advancement is looking for opportunities of “symbiosis” instead of “commensalism” – in symbiosis, different organisms each derive benefit from the other whereas in commensalism, one organism derives benefit from the other without harming the first, but gives no benefit back.
(The worst relationship is “parasitism” – a fact of life in many organizations – where one organism benefits while actually harming the other and continually requires new organisms to continue the benefit for itself and its offspring.)
Many organizations are really commensal in operation, with most of the benefit one-sided in favor of the managers, but there is rarely true growth or expansion of the commensal organization, especially when it meets competition from an organization which has its managers and workers in a symbiotic relationship where EACH gains benefit when the other gains and therefore help each other make those gains.
The real question on the table is
“How can a lowly worker initiate change from a parasitic or commensal organization to a symbiotic one?”
Over the years, dozens, even hundreds of authors and philosophers have tackled that question.
Most of the more cogent and practical theories include these points
(note this is merely MY summary of the various approaches and is not meant to be all-inclusive, but I caution that success depends not only on the skill of the person initiating these changes, but an awful lot of luck is involved in having the sun, moon, and stars all aligned perfectly):
The initiator must:
- Identify a potential “champion” among the upper management who will find it in his own self-interest to become a collaborator in “nudging” the organization to becoming “symbiotic.” (This means the initiator must be willing to allow the champion to take any glory for the change.)
- Educate the champion on the benefits of a symbiotic organization.
- Help the champion create a plan to enlist other top management in the plan. (This means the champion must ALSO be willing to share some of the glory with his peers in top management.)
- Help select and work with a “change manager” selected or appointed by the champion and his peers to introduce the plan for a symbiotic organization to each and every group of employees and help them accept the plan by showing how the plan is BETTER THAN the current status quo. (Sometimes a change means some individuals won’t fit with the new organization – this means disclosing the fact as soon as possible and working on making those who survive with the organization comfortable with the fact their benefit may mean a dislocation for the non-survivors. Usually this means a provision for “outplacement” of the nonsurvivors to another job so they aren’t destroyed, but merely relocated.)
None of these steps are easy or instinctual - they require knowledge, planning, and skill in persuasion.
Once the changes are in place, participate in a continual review of the changes as implemented to see they follow the plan. If yes, ask the question, “Can they be improved?” If not, “Why not?” and “How can we get back on track?”
[Note this is all based on PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act), whether the authors use that term or not.]
Above all, change initiated from a low-ranking employee is faced with a lot of barriers and most who try are not successful in reaching a level of change which approaches symbiosis. In many cases, folks are likely to consider themselves successful if they can move from parasitism to commensalism.
A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER THREAD
Offshoring may or may not be a symptom of poor management, but offshoring alone does not define bad management. The key to whether offshoring is a symptom of bad management lies in the REAL motivation of upper level managers to move production offshore. It's a big topic and one that deserves its own thread.