(contd.)
I call up the SP later and say to him: ‘You’re a senior guy and you have been with us for some years now. You have, on past occasions, taken up work, at personal inconvenience. You also know how important this assignment is to us. If I tell you to continue working, you would regard me as also insensitive. If I tell you to pack up and return, it means upset customer and possible loss of business. So I trust you to take the call yourself. And I will back your decision.’
PS: The SPM decided to return from the assignment prematurely, he did undergo a minor surgery that put him out of action for a few weeks; he appreciated that we stood by him. He went on to do well with us for a few more years. The customer did hit the ceiling initially; we explained the compulsions and he saw us going to great lengths to protect his interests and he continued to stay with us thereafter.
These are tough times for a manager to take decisions. Trusting (a good) employee’s judgement in such adverse conditions is a kind of employee empowerment of high-order that corporates often shout about. A strong message such as this willingness to bite the bullet has enormous pay-back. Nevretheless, the manager must exercise due-diligence and be seen to be in firm control of the situation right thru. And he must quickly resolve in a way that takes into account divergent interests. If one thinks hard enough, numerous ‘gray’ solutions would pop up between the ‘will’ and the ‘won’t’ that the two parties in conflict could be persuaded to accept. Or, there are ways to soften the ‘will’ or the ‘won’t’. In any case, time is the essence; the more the situation festers the more difficult becomes the acceptance of a middle ground.
Did I put the employee’s interest ahead of my customer’s interest, against the credo of a service provider? No, I was bringing back alignment of the two stake-holder interests as much as the situation would allow, still swearing by the same credo.
(concluded)
The last paragraph of this article prompted me to share my thoughts on this article:
When I joined corporate world fresh out of college more than two decades back, I was bombarded with series of training sessions with catchy slogans/captions as the motto of the organization as – (a)’Customer is always right’ (b)’Customer comes first’ etc. i have a different take on the motto of successful organizations – (a)’Share holders come first’. Organizations exist to make profit (unless the organization is a charitable entity). (b)’Employees are the second’. It is very important to have satisfied employees to have consistent/predictable quality products’ offering in the market place. C)’Customers are the third most important entity’. It is important to understand the customer preferences/requirements in a constant change of market conditions.
With reference to the specific case of SPM,
(1)Delivery manager owns the responsibility for the situation if the SPM is acting up. If SPM’s problem is genuine, AM is the owner of the situation. In the first scenario, SPM was a misfit for the project. In the second scenario, it is a way of life and important to get customer confidence. In many organizations, Delivery manager is viewed as an automatic owner of the problem and as a result, may not always be able to find right improvement; especially in case of the second scenario. The most likely advice delivery manager gets from his senior/executive management is to have shared responsibility and salvage the situation. Shared responsibility is a term often misused/misunderstood in the corporate world. Overall success of the account involves many players and all of these players have varied degree of responsibility. However, each of the activity/situation must have only one owner (with others as supporting cast). The owner should be fully empowered.
(2)Vendor organization should take full responsibility for the situation and find solution in case of the first scenario. Every effort should be made to make sure that impact to the customer is very minimal. If the customer does not appreciate the second scenario in spite of the best efforts from the vendor organization, it is better to let go off the account. Bending backwards to please the customer in this scenario leads to lower employee morale, high employee turnover, loss of money on the project and failed operations/organizations eventually.
Thanks, Prasad for sharing your thoughts on this ever-green subject. Looking forward to hearing more from you…