Management rules and performance requirements should be fair for everyone.
While that statement makes logical sense, you might return the statement that different people in different management, supervisory, administrative, and front line positions have widely differing jobs. As such, you will state that the same rules for everyone are impossible.
I am not saying that all employees have identical rules, cutting across all job descriptions. What I am suggesting is similar managers, working in the similar or identical positions within the company, have the same rules and the same expectations. They should also experience the same level of accountibility for their departmental results, their staff results, and their personal results.
Let's create an example.
A company has four Regional Sales and Marketing Managers. While all of their respective territories are of differing sizes, their goals remain the same. They must all provide profitable sales results for the company. Expanding their sales figures is also expected.
In our example, two managers are clearly meeting their sales objectives, and their regions are growing. The other two managers have seen their sales numbers stagnate and decline to a point where their regions are no longer profitable. In fact, the other regions are forced to subsidize their lack of activity.
You would think that the two underperforming managers would be called onto the carpet and explain themselves. That is not necessarily so. In fact, if they are longer term employees, and part of the old boys network within the organization, they will have different rules. Their numbers are often allowed to completely collapse, while the other two managers are required to produce strong sales volume, and to increase it over time.
You say that my example is unrealistic.
Well, I was in just such a company, and I am sure that many of you have shared a similar experience. I was one of the heavy producers, and enjoyed the most profitable region in the company's North American operations. Our region subsidized the two weakly performing regions.
Of cours, that is only a single example. You see it all the time in your business, and within your industry. The incompetent individuals are given more money, extra vacation time, and better perks. The real producers get less, and are always in danger of unemployment. They are a threat to the status quo. As a result, separate sets of rules for different people have evolved.
If your business, regardless of size, has evolved a separate set of rules to coddle the incompetent, you are not doing your company any favours. In fact, you are doing a great disservice to your company bottom line. Not only is the practice costing money, it's harmful to employee morale. When staff see certain individuals get preferential treatment, yet are not pulling their own weight, the employees resent it. Often this employee resentment spills over and affects customer service and product quality, further compounding an already bad situation.
If your business looks like the one that I have just described, it's time to make some changes. if high sales volumes and constant growth are expected from one department, and manager, then the same rules should apply to them all. Should the company pets fail to live up to their minimum requirements, it's time to consider replacement with newer more productive personnel.
Make your employee rules and performance requirements fair and equitable.
It's only good business.
No comments:
Post a Comment