Commentary on a Passive Aggressive Department
The case of the passive-aggressive department
A client came to me with an under-performing department. Its staff were
largely longtime employees who were very comfortable in their jobs.
They frequently resorted to excuses and blaming others when their
department did not perform as desired, and often would try to use those
excuses as substitutes for action.
My challenge was to find a way to restructure the department,
invigorate its performance, and if necessary replace staff.
This situation reminded me of a story about Sun Tzu, the author of The
Art of War. He said that, when soldiers do not perform, one must make
certain that they understood what they were supposed to do. Only after
you are certain they understood and still did not perform, is it
appropriate to punish them or their officers.
I took charge of the department and set out to bring it up to what I
call Maturity Level Two - that is, that everything that they did should
be done the same way each time, and that I should get visibility into
their work and their effectiveness.
This required me to learn their jobs and do them for a while - which
was not hard - and to create some manual forms for things like call
logs that I was now requiring them to fill out each day. I got a copy
each day and kept my own log of whether they turned it in, whether it
was completely filled out, and whether it was on time. Within a week I
posted this "compliance log" at my desk, sending each a copy with a
note: "Please make sure I am accurate in my assessment." This had
several effects: it made it clear that I was paying attention to their
compliance - and even writing it down - and gave them extra reasons to
comply with the daily reporting requirement. It also gave them a chance
to turn in logs that they might have completed but forgotten to turn
in, and to catch any errors I might have made. This last aspect helped
ensure that any later criticism I might have would not be based on a
simple error by me - unjust criticism is a morale killer and would have
undermined my authority.
I also made it clear that I might at some point check their call logs
against the computerized phone system?s automatic call logs, and that I
might post those computerized logs in the public bulletin board. This
led to a reasonably rapid compliance with my new policy of limiting
personal phone calls.
There were a couple of tasks that required this department to interface
with other departments - I studied these and interviewed staff in those
peer areas.
[to be continued]
Back to Top
Case Study #1 - Oral Tradition
Situation
Department with an Oral Tradition of how things are done - no written
procedures that are up to date. They rely heavily on a few experienced
workers to provide knowledge to the rest of the staff as to how things
are done, plus there are many ad hoc questions the manager must resolve
daily, the answers to which are not retained or recorded. Organization
is highly seasonal and must bring on a large number of temporary
workers for several weeks during the Christmas rush. Previous Christmas
seasons have been chaotic and nightmarish, with performance and quality
problems.
Symptoms
New people are slow to be brought on and have a high error rate.
Experienced workers resent the time they spend training new people and
give it their minimum effort. Quality suffers as the new workers'
output fails to meet general standards of acceptability. Customers
complain. New worker morale is low. Workers and junior managers are
managed and evaluated subjectively and emotionally - if someone "seems
to be trying hard" they are regarded positively by the manager, while
someone else who "is always finding problems" is held in low esteem.
There are few meaningful metrics and none that are recorded regularly,
despite the use of a sophisticated departmental computer system for
most work.
Diagnosis
The Oral Tradition is usually a bad idea, and it especially cannot hold
up in a seasonal environment where inexperienced people must be made
productive quickly. Subjective management is also bad, as it means
workers are evaluated and treated based on how well the manager likes
them or gets along with them, rather than on how they perform their
assigned job tasks.
Treatment
1. End the oral tradition and create written procedures.
2. Create worker acceptance of, and cooperation in creating and then
obeying, the written procedures.
3. Institute meaningful metrics.
4. Institute a culture of written procedures.
5. Create job descriptions and manage to them.
6. Create a variable pay offering tied to performance against written
job goals, and teach management how to manage a person with such a pay
offering. This can reduce subjective management and replace it with
objective management.
Effect
Significant increases in overall performance against baseline. New
workers achieving high productivity within half the previous time.
Certain tasks sped up 10-fold. Quality metrics show up to a four-fold
improvement.
Back to Top
Case Study #2 - Low Performing Department
Situation
Department with a "bad attitude" - regarded by some in the company as
not performing their tasks adequately, but the department was opaque.
It was nearly impossible for an outsider to tell if they actually were
doing well or not. Key staff in the department had a sarcastic and
negative attitude towards senior management and the company overall,
and frequently made excuses for non-performance, such as blaming
inadequate tools.
Symptoms
Procrastination, sullen attitude, non- or under-performance, and
ineffectiveness.
Diagnosis
The underlying behavior can be described as ?passive-aggressive? ? in
which a person appears to agree to do something, but then becomes
?passive? and fails to do it, making excuses for the failure. This
passivity is combined with a hostile or negative attitude, sarcasm,
disbelief, and a refusal to actually explain what the problem is or why
the desired work cannot really be done. Such a person gives up at the
first road block, and will try to make others solve each problem as it
arises, exerting no drive or creativity.
Treatment
1. We made certain that the assigned tasks were actually clear enough
to be performed. A passive-aggressive reaction is common when workers
receive unclear or contradictory instructions or are evaluated on an
ever-shifting standard under which it is impossible for them to win.
2. A new manager was assigned with direct and complete control over the
department. He instituted several new procedures that were highly
detailed (such as submitting daily written reports of planned versus
actual work accomplished) and which he tracked closely.
3. The most crucial department tasks were examined for effectiveness,
and streamlined to improve throughput. Meanwhile, low-performing
workers were given regular feedback on their productivity.
4. Specific instances of non-compliance with the new procedures were
dealt with immediately and impartially. Nobody was given ?time to get
around to adopting the new approach? ? instead they were given
immediate feedback, reinforcing the new situation and the new higher
expectations for performance.
5. A senior manager, who was in the habit of giving vague instructions
and tight deadlines to the department, was intercepted by the new
manager and required to provide far more detailed instructions. This
was further reduced to specific tasks and assignments with deadlines.
This project was subsequently completed ahead of schedule and with
better than expected quality.
6. Technical tools were improved and simplified, and assignments
described in terms of how to use the tools to perform them.
Effect
Significant and measurable improvement occurred. The backlog was
eliminated within two months, morale inside the department improved,
and relations between the department and the rest of the company
improved markedly. Instances of ?acting out,? sullen attitude, sarcasm,
and under-performance decreased. Senior management expressed
satisfaction with the overall improvement.
Back to Top
|
