Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Same Problem, Three Approaches
Three managers all had the same problem. Their employees just weren’t producing enough billable work.
Manager A decided he would go into the shop and supervise everything the employees did. Whenever he would see anyone “wasting time” he would call it to their attention. He would then tell them to get back with it.
Manager B did not have time for such a hands on approach. He figured people work harder for more money. He devised a pay plan. It started with a low base rate and increased pay per hour as billable hours went up.
Manager C made a list of as many things as he could that caused billable hours to be low. He discussed the list with his employees and explained the issue. They committed to work at each issue and monitor the results.
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 47 Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: Re: Same Problem, Three Approaches
louis wrote:
Three managers all had the same problem. Their employees just weren’t producing enough billable work.
Manager A decided he would go into the shop and supervise everything the employees did. Whenever he would see anyone “wasting time” he would call it to their attention. He would then tell them to get back with it.
Manager B did not have time for such a hands on approach. He figured people work harder for more money. He devised a pay plan. It started with a low base rate and increased pay per hour as billable hours went up.
Manager C made a list of as many things as he could that caused billable hours to be low. He discussed the list with his employees and explained the issue. They committed to work at each issue and monitor the results.
Three approaches, any thoughts?
Actually, each has some merit, depending on how they are implemented and what types of people are involved. Different personalities respond to these approaches in different ways. In general, a combination of B and C with a little bit of A often works well in many shops.
_________________ Tom Ham
AutomotiveManagementNetwork.com - Hams Management Systems
Tom's view seems to address the issue from a phsycological standpoint, if I'm reading it correctly. Motivational management?
If so, just politely inform the employees of the issues, give them a financial incentive to improve (increase production and lower comebacks), and let them know when they mess up. In fact, this approach is quite popular throughout business.
It all seems to make sense, but what else we are missing?
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject:
The people working for manager A will resent him, or her. They may do the work, but their heart will not be in it. After a while they will do just enough to keep the manager off their backs. Production will probably fall in the long run instead of rise. Employees will not work at the job for long, so turn over will be high. Most people do not like working for a manager like this.
Manager B is going to have quality issues with the work produced. The people that stay working for him will be in it for the money. They will not take any personal pride in what they do, just get it done and ship it out the door. More people can work work with this leadership style than that of manager A, but the majority will not. Turn over will still be fairly high.
Manager C will have the best chance of improving billable hours. People like to have a say in how things are done. They like to have some control over what they do. His approach allows them to use their talents and abilities to improve.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Same Problem, Three Approaches
louis wrote:
Three managers all had the same problem. Their employees just weren’t producing enough billable work.
Manager A decided he would go into the shop and supervise everything the employees did. Whenever he would see anyone “wasting time” he would call it to their attention. He would then tell them to get back with it.
Manager B did not have time for such a hands on approach. He figured people work harder for more money. He devised a pay plan. It started with a low base rate and increased pay per hour as billable hours went up.
Manager C made a list of as many things as he could that caused billable hours to be low. He discussed the list with his employees and explained the issue. They committed to work at each issue and monitor the results.
Three approaches, any thoughts?
Managers A, B and C might well be the same person, at different levels of management understanding. Manager A is normally the initial approach. By personally directing each action, the manager feels they are optimizing the organization. A popular cliche calls it 'micro-managing.' Some managers never move beyond this stage.
The results are predictable and non-predictable. For instance, we can predict that such a system won't progress beyond the size a manager can personally oversee. This might explain why so many shops never grow beyond two or three techs, or are top heavy with management, service writers and other non-technical staff, and aren't very profitable.
Unpredictable, is the nature of people to become very complacent under such a system. People by nature are creative, thinking beings. Micro-managing also means “Check your brains at the door and put your back into it.” This management style can work with folks that have no other option or are doing very simple work. The shame is, management loses the vast majority of what they pay people for, creativity and thinking. People under such systems do little more than they have to and are called 'difficult' by managers. They tend to concentrate more and more on the “letter of the rules.” Their creativity [not used by management] is often used to come up with ways to beat the system or to skirt on the edges.
Observed from this manager’s view point, people may be seen as a bit lazy by nature. It is likely thought that all people are different and they need something to “make them work.”
Manager B, then, is normally manager A, frustrated by a lack of results. He realizes the fallacy of trying, or no longer has time, to micro-manage the staff. Incentives are often seen as the answer. In effect, incentives are a conditional promise. I see them as an abdication of management and a cry for help. “Give me this and you will get that,” “If for any reason you can’t give me this, you don’t get that.” In my opinion, reliance on financial incentives is an indication of a manager's lack of confidence in their ability as a leader.
As with manager A, incentives can have a limited effect, as long as people need and do not have enough of what is offered. Eventually most people figure out how to maximize the system to their gain. Those that cannot normally move on, those that do, often do it at the expense of other staff members. This causes strife among the employees.
The manager at this stage may also be convinced that people exist in groups. There is usually “The top guy,” followed by ever decreasing ratings. It may also be thought that the bottom twenty-percent are expendable and the manager is normally looking for “that great tech” or that 'great salesperson.' There is likely to be all sorts of measurements of productivity, and quality, and those that appear to prove the manager most effective are likely most popular. Measures such as company/sales growth, profitability per employee and net profit are likely less important.
On the other hand, Manager C has discovered, people do what is best when it pleases them to do so. He sees the job of management as removing obstacles that prevent better performance. He realizes such behavior cannot be coerced nor bribed. He must demonstrate to the staff why better results are in everyone’s best interest. He realizes only intrinsically motivated people are likely to reach this stage. Knowing this, he carefully avoids any thing that might work against intrinsic motivation.
Manager C is far more likely to out produce manager A or B, even though the staff does not appear to work as hard. There is likely less amounts of management and far more sales per employee than in the other environments. Company growth, profit and sales growth are the natural outcome.
Managers A, B and C may very likely be the same person, but in different stages of development. For instance, A child may cry for what they want. Later they may learn to get what they want through coercion; withholding affection when they do not get what they want. Still later they may become a leader and lead people to achieve and have more than they may have had without leadership. Properly accomplished, I feel this is a linear progression. I think it doubtful, reaching the C level, there would be any desire to return to the methods of the past.
As each stage is learned the previous stage may be seen for what it is. Eventually the more effective is mastered and the less effective methods discarded. Manager C has a style far superior to A and B, even though he may have gone through A and B phases to learn it. Short comings of the past should not be dwelled upon, they should be put where they belong; In the past.
Tom's view seems to address the issue from a phsycological standpoint, if I'm reading it correctly. Motivational management?
If so, just politely inform the employees of the issues, give them a financial incentive to improve (increase production and lower comebacks), and let them know when they mess up. In fact, this approach is quite popular throughout business.
It all seems to make sense, but what else we are missing?
Not to take away from Louis' answer, but to add to it: Incentives, pep talks, correction and all that overlook one big thing. They all assume that management has designed a perfect work system, chose all the right equipment and furnishings, gets all the right customers, and sets up communication channels that work perfectly.
Therefore if any mistakes are being made it must be the fault of the workers. So, just reward or punish them as needed, and things will be perfect.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject:
Bud wrote:
Not to take away from Louis' answer, but to add to it: Incentives, pep talks, correction and all that overlook one big thing. They all assume that management has designed a perfect work system, chose all the right equipment and furnishings, gets all the right customers, and sets up communication channels that work perfectly.
Therefore if any mistakes are being made it must be the fault of the workers. So, just reward or punish them as needed, and things will be perfect.
Hi Bud,
This is quite insightful, thanks for adding it. In reality, many businesses are very good systems, to determine which employee(s) are best at dealing with the failings and complexities of the system. Those that produce results, in spite of the built in problems, are the "really good workers."
Let's not try anything as rash as making the system easier for everyone Instead let's reward those that best jump through the hoops and punish those not as adept. Too bad that doesn't earn a profit or contribute to growth
I once heard Dr. Deming say, "Change is not mandatory, survival is optional."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Instead let's reward those that best jump through the hoops and punish those not as adept. Too bad that doesn't earn a profit or contribute to growth 
