I am not the Prophet you might be thinking of. I am the prophet who is not recognized in his own land. I do not play the popular game of 'catch me if you can.' You don’t need to catch me; I am always at hand. I am always busy with work. I do not simply work, fulfill duties, and follow orders like most do; I strive to improve something around me.
Unfortunately, I am a man of the old school. I am sixty years old and I am an intellectual. Nowadays, much like in the last hundred years, this word either sounds like an insult or an excuse for inaction, weakness, and childishness. But I have nothing to justify.
I am one of those people on whom our factory relies. But, as can be gathered from the first sentences of my story, until now, no one cared about this fact. To be precise, they didn't. Recently, a certain King appeared in our area (he never revealed his name, and it was quite uncomfortable to communicate). He came to me yesterday. We talked for a long time – to be honest, I did not expect this young man to be so educated, interesting, and profound. He explained to me that I am a Prophet.
At the end of our conversation, the King left me a book by Jim Collins titled 'From Good to Great' and recommended that I pay special attention to the chapter about Level 5 leaders. Honestly, I find these modern trends of inventing various ranks, levels, belts, and other markings amusing, but the King managed to pique my interest by saying that the book is based on serious research. Thanks to this book, I understood who I should become, but never will – a company leader.
The book clearly and simply explains, using examples from several foreign companies, how individuals with destinies, experiences, and worldviews similar to mine achieve brilliant successes in managing enterprises. It provides a detailed description of the reasons why this happens and why a true leader should grow within the company and not be brought in from outside. Only a person who has grown within the company, who has been with it for a long time – preferably about 15 years – understands and feels it, quite literally.
But, as you might guess, such a fate is not intended for me - we do not live in those times. Now is the time of "effective" managers. I have long observed this phenomenon and want to share a few thoughts on it. I hope you will see that the current times are just as they have always been.
In factories, at all levels, there are always three types of people. This classification is my own, so I apologize if it coincides or does not coincide with any existing one, including yours.
The first type consists of those who simply came to work, and they are the majority. Workers, warehouse staff, drivers, accountants, economists, suppliers, designers, technologists, etc. - practically all specialties. Many mid-level managers, appointed after many years of good service, also belong to this type. Good, pleasant, honest people. But there is a downside - they are, for the most part, indifferent to the enterprise they work for. They would not want the company to collapse, cut staff, or start implementing any changes, as they would face disruptions in their life stability - the most unpleasant event for them.
The second type consists of those who came to create, improve, and push forward. Specifically to create, not just to plan, prepare, discuss, or agree on the creation of something. Quietly, diligently, with passion, not sparing effort and time. Such people are few. The second type of people genuinely love their enterprise, but interestingly, they do not improve because they love it, rather they love it because they improve it. They have a feedback system in place, where you begin to love what you care for. Just like dog owners fall in love with each of their pets, as love does not exist before their acquisition, it develops during the process. The second type of people love every job they take on, every company, and sincerely want, try, and make it better.
This is precisely the type of Prophets that no one wants to notice. I misspoke - they are noticed, known, valued, and loved. The first type of people. And why they never take the helm, I think is already clear. Because there are people of the third type.
The third type consists of those who come to receive. In fact, a different word from modern vocabulary would fit better, but I won't lower myself to their level and will try to express my thoughts in civilized English. I hope you understand me.
People of the third type have always been present in enterprises, but they were called by different names. In Soviet times, they were usually political workers, and the children of other higher-ranking political workers. They caused little harm, as they didn't need to do anything to... Never mind. They didn't need to do anything. They came to receive — and they received. Just like that, because they are from the caste.
In managerial positions that involved real work, decision-making, and responsibility, there were either people of the first or second types. It was simply impossible otherwise — a planned economy operated. Now, with poor management, an enterprise can simply disappear, including physically, turning into yet another shopping center. During Soviet times, a factory could only disappear by order — as happened during the evacuation of 1941-42. It was, in a way, the system's self-defense against ineffective management.
In the 1990s, there was a collapse — the third type of people practically disappeared from the shops. The only ones to mention are the 'brothers' — they also came to receive. But, as a rule, their visits were limited to high offices. Occasionally, it reached us when there were two hostile takeovers. But, I repeat, they did not interfere much, only at the level of the general productivity of the factory (which was absent during the takeover for obvious reasons).
You know the third type of people who are now present in almost all enterprises — these are the so-called 'effective' managers. They come to the factory to receive. But not just to receive — to receive within the framework of the 'theme.' I apologize, I still couldn't find a decent and understandable synonym for this 'theme.' The word itself is not bad, but the meaning behind it is beyond criticism.
The idea is simple: see a popular "theme," read a couple of (at best) books on it, memorize the first steps of implementing the "theme" (just as Ostap Bender knew the first move of a chess game), and sell yourself effectively. There is a ton of information online for each of these components, especially about "selling" as a universal, inter"theme" practice.
There are plenty of "themes." If I recall correctly, the first ones to come to us were website creators at the end of the nineties. Back then, this service cost an outrageous amount of money, so the director didn't invest in it.
Then came automation, on the early versions of the now-popular platform. These guys managed to break in, and there was a need for it, especially in the accounting sector.
Next came certification according to international ISO standards. Perhaps I've never encountered anything more unreasonable, and yet simultaneously brilliant, in my life. You’ll immediately grasp the irrationality when you consider the purpose of the standards system: to describe standard processes for most enterprises. It's like trying to develop a universal GOST for all industries.
In principle, nothing is impossible – if you strip away the specifics of a particular production process, you get some sort of universal standard. But what remains if you remove those very specifics? "Work well, strive, love your customers, pay your bills on time, and plan your production"? Even in this formulation, there are aspects that are irrelevant to several types of production that I have personally observed.
And what is the brilliance? The fact that, despite the objective absurdity of the idea, it sold wonderfully. This standard was implemented by all manufacturing enterprises in Russia. The "theme" is that strong and the ability of third-type people to "sell" it.
Around the mid-2000s, in my observation, there was a fundamental shift that gave birth to these so-called "effective" managers. You may have noticed that prior to this point, "themes" came to the factory from external sources – they were literally external companies, contractors with whom we signed contracts, collaborated on something, and then parted ways. But in the mid-2000s, specific individuals started to branch off from the contractors.
These specific individuals grasped the 'theme' — there’s no point in working for a contractor, performing tasks under a contract, earning a small piece-rate salary or a percentage of the total amount. One must go where the full sum is waiting – at the factory.
The first to arrive were the 1C implementers. They lived their lives as all the factories operated, and suddenly it became apparent that no one could live without automation, and definitely not without 1C. A plethora of specialists emerged, who had a solid understanding of business processes and knew how to select the right solutions, yet, for some reason, they never achieved any significant results for the factory, while demanding exorbitant fees for their services. Even now, a decent 1C programmer costs more than a good technologist, designer, often a chief engineer, chief accountant, financial director, etc.
Then, programmers suddenly transformed, as if by a magic wand, into IT directors. While sitting at their computers in their development environment, one could still argue about the usefulness of their work — at least they were doing something with their hands. Once they became IT directors, they completely stopped working. Honestly, in my personal opinion, the 'most effective' managers are indeed IT directors.
Next came the ISO implementation specialists. I personally saw how respectable people, engineers who had been working at our enterprise, one day sensed this 'theme'. It literally happened like this. The factory decided to obtain ISO certification – it was necessary for establishing some contacts with foreign companies' representatives.
They invited a consultant, a certified auditor. He arrived, taught, assisted, received his payment, but also decided to boast and told the engineers how much he earns. As far as I remember, the figure mentioned was a thousand euros per day for the lead auditor during on-site audits. This was around 2005, when the euro was worth about forty rubles. Imagine the fire that ignited in the eyes of the engineers earning, if memory serves me right, about fifteen thousand rubles per month.
All you need to do is obtain an auditor certificate. Of course, on-site audits don’t happen every day, but there’s still no shortage of clients, and the shortage of specialists is evident — few have sensed the 'trend'. Engineers have pursued it. Five people left; two actually became auditors — I'm not sure if they were leading ones, but they were certainly busy. The truth is, they are now languishing somewhere in quality management or quality control.
There was a similar story with ISO implementers as with the transformation of 1C programmers into IT directors — almost every factory now has a quality director. Whether a former auditor, a former consultant, or a former participant in an ISO implementation on the customer’s side. In any case, it’s someone who has sensed the 'trend'.
Any 'trends', in my opinion, are very similar to each other. Their main feature is that nobody can quite explain why they are needed for a factory. Without slogans and attempts to sell themselves, but in terms of at least economics or elementary logic. There are very few examples of successful growth in financial or economic indicators clearly caused by automation or the implementation of standards — and usually, they are not from Russian practice, but from the originators of these practices, or at least their direct followers.
I’ve noticed the ‘trend’ addiction not only among engineers and programmers. A professor I know also realized at one time that something needed to change, and he became a consultant. He is indeed a smart man, and from all the popular topics, he chose Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. He studied it thoroughly, through all sources, reviewed all the practices, deeply immersed himself, and began to 'sell' himself.
At first, it was very successful — the 'trend' worked and brought in income. But soon, the 'trend' faded — and according to the professor, this had nothing to do with the success of applying any particular methodology. There’s just a certain fashion created by those very 'effective' managers. One moment, they sing the praises of TOC, then they stop and start promoting something else — something simpler to understand and study, more complex to implement (to become embedded in the company for a long time), and with more vague, hidden, and unclear results.
Businesses are reacting to the trend and are no longer ordering the same traditional management methods, now requesting Scrum instead. The professor switched to this methodology. Once again, he studied it thoroughly—as befits a serious academic. He delved into both the methodology itself and the foundations it’s built upon. Now he had two tools in his portfolio for sale.
But, surprisingly, everyone only wants what’s popular. Literally: the professor approaches the director, studies the issues, and says—what you need is traditional management. No, replies the director, we need Scrum. The professor explains in detail, with figures, that traditional management will bring tangible profit increases in specific areas through clear actions. No, says the director, we want Scrum. Because it’s already been implemented over there and there. The professor cannot bear it any longer and offers to go all in—do the project for free, but receive a small share of the profit increase. No, replies the director, only Scrum.
The professor has no choice now—he cannot sell what would help his clients. He sells what clients ask for, what’s trendy and well-promoted. Moreover, he fully understands that the essence of Scrum, to put it mildly… It’s not so much that it’s copied from some source. It completely echoes several methodologies that existed back in the Soviet Union.
For example, if anyone remembers, there were such brigade accounts. Exactly like the Scrum team (for instance, as described in Jeff Sutherland's book, an autonomous group of journalists in revolutionary Egypt). A practically fully autonomous brigade receives a task—to produce a specific number of parts. For the output, the foreman gets paid, which he distributes within the team at his discretion. The foreman is an elected position. How management is structured internally is up to the team; no one from outside interferes. No methodologies, books, seminars, stand-ups, boards, or any other frills—only those methods that help achieve results faster survive. And it worked, in every factory, without “effective” managers and self-assured young folks from social media, dressed in bright T-shirts with full beards and good foreign language skills.
If you're interested, read the very intriguing research by Alexander Petrovich Prokhorov titled 'The Russian Management Model'. This is indeed research – on each page, there is at least one reference to a source (articles in scientific journals, books, studies, biographies, memoirs). Unfortunately, such books are rarely written anymore. A contemporary management book, if it includes references, typically only cites previous works by the same author.
In general, it is very easy to distinguish an 'effective' manager. He is like a sales consultant in an electronics store. Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you come to buy a phone or a laptop, and as you are looking, a consultant approaches to offer help? You ask – which phone has a high-speed hard drive. What does he do? Correct, he starts reading the labels with you. Or he pulls out a phone, opens a website (not necessarily his company's), and looks it up.
For comparison, think of a tool seller at the market – someone who has owned the shop for many years. In our case, that's Sergey Ivanovich at the radio market. He knows his products inside and out. He will always exchange something if it breaks, without receipts or written notes. He will come to the customer's home and show them how to use the device. He knows nothing about phones, TVs, or computers, and doesn’t pretend to. He chose his path – power tools, studied them thoroughly, and that’s what he does. The radio market has been around for as long as his shop. Yes, he doesn’t have the same turnover and profit as Leroy Merlin or Castorama. But people want to work with him, not with a consultant from a store. Because professionalism is still important, even if it has been largely diminished by the prevalence of 'effective' managers.
We had a lecturer at our institute who loved to joke at the students' expense. For as long as he has been working, he has convinced everyone around him that we are the most talentless students, and each year it gets worse. His favorite joke: if engineers were sent to the factory for a bucket of voltage – you would go! Just out of curiosity, try asking a consultant in a store – what is the dichotomous majoration of this phone's matrix? Do you think he would go find out? I tried – he went. Because he couldn't find the answer online.
"Topics" change, but the number of "effective" managers keeps increasing. I will resemble my lecturer and say – even "effective" managers used to be better. They are getting younger every year and, unfortunately, less talented. They've even forgotten how to communicate and engage in discussions.
I'm not an old stubborn curmudgeon, arguing with everyone just for the sake of argument. I genuinely want to understand, to try applying it, and to achieve results from what they preach. But, alas, they themselves do not understand what they are selling. They are just consultant boys from the electronics store.
I have read books on all the methodologies that are on the list of "topics." Some of them I implemented in production, and they brought results. For example, Kanban – not the one that suddenly became a method for managing software development, but the one invented by Taiichi Ohno at Toyota factories, which accelerated product life cycles by reducing work-in-progress inventory. What do you think our conversation was about when the next "effective" manager came to us with the intent to implement Kanban?
About how it's time for me to retire. About how Kanban has evolved and turned into... At this point, the "effective" manager got a bit confused, thought for a moment, but couldn't properly explain what the good old Kanban has turned into. Realizing that the conversation was going in the wrong direction, the manager switched to aggression. He accused me of hindering progress and dragging the enterprise back to the Stone Age. He stopped talking to me – turned to the director instead. You know how these strange conversations go – a person seems to answer your question, but not to you, not mentioning you, and looking at another person. He no longer looked at me – only occasionally glanced.
This is quite a characteristic trait of 'effective' managers. Once, I encountered an explanation for such behavior in a film recommended by my son called 'Here They Smoke'. The essence is simple: it’s a debate, not a negotiation. The goal isn’t to convince that he is right, but to convince that I am wrong. Moreover, not myself, but those around me. The logic that follows is straightforward: if I am wrong, then he is right. Strangely enough, it works excellently.
It suffices to accuse me, or any other employee from the old guard, of rigidity, conservatism, obstructing change, or being overly focused on details, and the decision-makers will immediately side with the 'effective' manager. He understands that we, the old-fashioned ones, are intellectuals who, unfortunately, value our place in the company quite a lot, and simply will not stoop to his level, arguing, accusing, defending ourselves, or using crafty tricks. We will simply step aside and wait it out.
Because no 'effective' manager will last long in a manufacturing enterprise within the real sector of the economy. He doesn’t need that – he came to reap the benefits and escape before it's realized that he is just another fraud. We, the prophets, somehow manage to support and develop the enterprise in the intervals between 'effective' managers. Although, to be honest, sometimes all we can do is lick our wounds.
Recently, yet another one flew out, the IT director. However, the King hinted that it’s not quite so simple. I don’t like these secrets of the Madrid court, so I didn't bother to inquire further. If he wants, he will tell himself. If not – it’s fine, we've survived tougher Kings.
He simply brought yet another 'topic.' Yes, it’s probably better than the previous ones in some way. It might benefit the enterprise. It’s possible that this 'topic' might take root. But it’s still just a 'topic.' A trend, a migratory bird, plywood over Paris. And all these secrets, nicknames, clever schemes for implementation at the plant, the director's motivation for change are just attributes that help the King to 'sell' himself.
Today, I have a meeting scheduled with the King and the director. Apparently, there will be another debate involving three parties. I think I’ll take a couple of pills beforehand and try not to get involved in pointless arguments. My health isn’t what it used to be.
Source: habr.com
