 |
|
|
|
|
|
I
run a large (200+) manufacturing plant. It is privately held and sales are down
about 35% under forecast for the company. In the last year I have had six
different bosses at the corporate level. My latest boss is back for a second try
after being deposed a little over four months ago.
He is micromanaging my facility to the point where he is denying not only a $1.00 per hour raise to retain a good employee, but then eliminating the position in its entirety to save even more on headcount. I currently have first line supervisors in production positions because headcount is so scrutinized. Seven of my 26 salaried managers have given me their resumes to review in the last two weeks. I find the loss of my managerial imperative regarding simple personal decisions to be very disconcerting. I am called three to four times per day regarding production numbers.
A classic case, last week the day shift set a production record on a Friday of 1999 units produced. On Monday morning the superior remarked, (he was serious), Why didn't you get 2000?" The production manager, who was in attendance for the uncalled for remark, responded, "Should we have scraped some off the floor?" The HR manager was also in attendance. Within 60 minutes this was public knowledge throughout the facility. How do I confront this type of managerial style? It is fair to say that the differing styles of myself and my new boss has polarized us.
Signed,
Under The Micromanagement Scope
Dear Micromanaged:
When sales are down, managers are afraid. They tend to think that they must scrutinize every jot and title. None of us likes to be over-managed. So what can you do? I think you have an immediate need for a one-on-one with your newly appointed boss. He has not asked you how you and your people want to be managed, so you must tell him. He needs to learn how you feel about his actions, especially because several of your people are preparing to look elsewhere for jobs. Such a candid confrontation may strike you as the last thing you want to do. No one wants to tell the boss he/she is doing a bad job. Fear of becoming a target of a boss from hell often makes subordinates bite their tongues.
How you tell the boss is what matters. Tact must temper, but not obscure, honest description of what annoys and alienates. Most managers insist that they not be brought problems without solutions, so in addition to the negatives, you should list (perhaps in writing too) ways you think the boss could manage better. A list of dos are equally as important as a list of don'ts. This talk undoubtedly will entail the new boss stating what he wants from you. Negotiating a set of ground rules that you and he can live with and work under may take more than one meeting.
In working with a plant such as yours, which engaged all levels from top to bottom, I found that a series of sit-down sessions of the management team with various working units led to a set of managing ground rules and understandings. Cleaning the bad blood and gradually moderating alienation was instrumental to the team building which followed and to the plant's commitment to quality improvement, cycle reduction time, enhanced productivity, and delighting the customer.
Probably your corporate manager will say that his 2,000 remark was only a joke and that your people must have a chip on their shoulders to take such a remark seriously. And that may be so. However, clearing the air with him should help him see that such remarks demotivate rather than do the job which cheerleading remarks can do.
WEGO does not just happen; getting there is a process of candid and supportive communication.
Bill Gorden
Thank you very much for your response. The loss of the staff's "sense of humor" is considerable. A quick poll I took of six managers revealed an intense professional and personal dislike of my superior. I need to mediate this better. A salient point is the "provincialism" East coast versus "Minnesota Nice" that the boss brings to the facility. A quick survey had remarks like: "totalitarian," "hip-shooter," "my-way-or-the-highway," "zero respect," "don't value employees as assets," "sexist," and "out of his element when it comes to managing people." I've got my work cut out for me. In any event, they believe in their hearts he meant it. Moral authority is an obscure managerial imperative and he's lost his. The trick for me is not to lose mine in this process.
Dear John:
As you no doubt know since you are in a high level managerial position, the job of management is not free from applied politics and tactical diplomacy. You are right about having your work cut out for you-- to keep your moral authority. Doing that will be easier if you can talk this out with all parties present, your boss and those who are disappointed with him. Of course this would best come only after gaining the consent of that person and those you call the staff. The thing that must be avoided on your part is appearing to waffle--seeming to talk one way when with the boss and another way when with the staff.
I've found that the ventilation, rehashing, and clarification of what irritates seem to be necessary before the process of finding creative solutions can be meaningful. Yet that negative phase can be shortened if a leader can skillfully word the task of such a coming together, such as If we all could have our druthers, what might we do to make each other's jobs more effective and satisfying?
Before, inviting answers to such a question, the leader might suggest that each individual pretend that he/she is a creative person, and while so pretending, all should jot down two or three answers to that question. One technique I've used so as to remove the fear of being honest in such encounters is to announce that no names should be attached to these answers. Also the leader should request that these suggestions be printed clearly enough so that others could read them. The answers are then tossed to and shuffled in the center of a table. After that, they are read aloud and posted on newsprint taped to the wall.
Clarification and discussion of the items can lead to a set of ground rules that might facilitate working more effectively as a management team. I've conducted such a meeting with as many as six tables, each with 8 to 10 persons. But the same can be conducted as a one table focus group, or like an after the game, coach led skull session. The technique is not as important as is attentive listening, careful posting of answers, and willingness to respond quickly to things that can be decided easily and to respond deliberatively (to do the work that takes more thought) to those issues that demand that..
I wish you well in whatever approach you elect to open the channels of honest and constructive communication. Achieving an effective set of managerial ground rules does not come by a top-down decree, but is an on-going bottom-up top-down collaborative process.
Thinking WEGO can help.
Bill Gorden