BACKGROUND: Privately held industrial service
company, run by 3 partners in a highly competitive, fragmented industry. One partner leads the company's sales and marketing, while the other finance
and the third manages the service workforce. Though the three partners
collaborate on all major business decisions and work well together they each
have greater expertise in and feel for individual primary responsibilities.
THE PROBLEM: Demand for the company's service is particularly high between early
November and early January. One of the company's top service
technicians has achieved master mechanic status, a level fewer than 20%
technicians ever reach in the industry, and is recognized by customers and
peers for routinely outstanding work. Customers often request him by name
for their most complex and time-sensitive jobs. The mechanic recently
earned a substantial pay raise and year-end bonus for his technical
excellence. However, the technician is also known to be a discipline
problem and will call out sick at unacceptable rates. He typically calls
out sick in the morning, right before the start of a work day leaving the
company little to no room for planning. These absences put the company at
risk for honoring customer commitments, potentially costing them business. More often than not, he calls in sick around holidays or Monday and Friday.
THE DISCONNECT: During this period
the technician called out sick at an unusually high rate (even for him),
putting enormous stress on company resources and client relationships. As
a way to discipline this employee and send him a message, the company
service leader decided to suspend the employee without pay for two days. He opened this discussion by telling the technician "you have
let me down and I can no longer tolerate it." The technician
responded angrily, threatening to quit because competitors know he's an excellent
mechanic capable for making them as much money as he does his current
employer. The technician went on to say that unless management
lifted the two day suspension he was prepared to quit and go to a
competitor.
THE INTERNAL DEBATE: Recognizing the technician
was serious about his threat to seek employment elsewhere, that any number of
competitors would hire him instantly--likely at an even higher salary--and that
the technician could likely pull some customers with him due to his exceptional
skill, but also fed-up with the technician's poor attendance record the company
service executive discussed the matter with his partners. Both reacted
the same way: the 3 partners would meet with this technician and immediately
fire him for insubordination and irresponsibility, and have the company
sales force get out ahead of the news by informing key customers of
the decision and why so that they would not lose business to a competitor
hiring this individual. The finance and sales partners also wanted to hold
an internal meeting to inform staff about this termination
and corresponding reasons to reinforce company standards and send a
message.
- Initially, the service executive agreed with his partners and
scheduled the 4 person meeting, but the more he thought about the situation and
potential consequences he became less certain. Clearly, he could not run
an efficient business with high rates of absenteeism but he also know it would
be extremely difficult of not impossible to replace his most expert technician.
As he thought about it, the service partner believed he could hold a productive
meeting with the technician but if he included his partners in the discussion
he had no doubt it would end with an ugly termination.
Managers are routinely confronted by similar situations every day. If you were this service executive what would you do and why? - THE SOLUTION: Ultimately, the service
executive decided to meet with the technician alone and had a very
productive meeting. Rather than framing the discussion through the
personal "you let me down" the service executive opened by
reinforcing how skilled the technician is and how important he is to the entire
company. He then related it to the greater responsibility a true leader
like this technician has to all other employees, who were all dependent on him
to be someone that could be counted on. The service executive talked
about his personal-professional responsibility running a business,
where protecting the welfare of the 150 employees and their families
depending on him to make wise business decisions is his most sacred trust; a
trust that is violated if he did not enforce basic standards. Effectively, the entire team was counting on the technician to be more responsible
and counting on the executive to get all team members to function as a high
performing equally committed team. Put in this perspective, the technician
admitted he had never really thought about it this way before, thanked the
service executive for his guidance and went back to work at the company
promising to be a more accountable professional .
Successful management teams build high levels of cooperative trust because they play off of and to each other's strengths. In this case, the service executive thanked his partners for their input and acknowledged they inspire confidence in each other because each trusts the other's functional expertise. In this spirit, it only made sense for him to privately meet with the technician. service executive recognized his partners are most comfortable operating in the black and white world while managing a service workforce requires mastery of managing in the gray area.
THE LESSON: As this case clearly demonstrates, mastering the gray is an even more critical trait the higher one goes in any organization and is necessary for making balanced business decisions.
1 comment:
Well written, this service executive must have very positive guidance..
Post a Comment