I am not the Prophet you might be thinking of. I am the prophet who is not in my own country. I don't play the popular "catch me if you can" game. You don't have to catch me, I'm always at hand. I'm always busy. I don’t just work, do my duties and follow the instructions, like most, but I try to improve at least something around me.
Unfortunately, I am an old school man. I am sixty years old and I am an intellectual. Now, as in the last hundred years, this word sounds either like a curse, or - as an excuse for inaction, weak will and infantilism. But I have nothing to justify.
I am one of those people on whom our plant is based. But, as follows from the first sentences of my story, no one cares about this fact. Or rather, it wasn't. The other day, a certain King appeared in our area (he never gave his name, and it was very inconvenient to communicate). Yesterday he came to me. We talked for a long time - to be honest, I did not expect this young man to turn out to be such an educated, interesting and deep person. He explained to me that I am a prophet.
At the end of the conversation, the King left Jim Collins' Good to Great for me to read, and recommended that I pay special attention to the chapter on Level 5 leaders. To be honest, these modern trends in inventing various ranks, steps, belts and other markings amuse me, but the King managed to interest me by saying that the book was written on the basis of serious research. Thanks to this book, I realized what I should become, but will never become - the head of the enterprise.
The book simply and intelligibly tells, using the example of several foreign companies, how people with a destiny, experience and worldview similar to mine achieve brilliant success in the field of enterprise management. A detailed description of the reasons why this happens, and why a real leader should grow inside the enterprise, and not be attracted from outside, is given. Only a person who grew up in a company, who has come a long way with it - preferably at the age of 15, understands and feels it, in the literal sense.
But, as you might guess, such a fate is not destined for me - we live at the wrong time. Now is the time for "effective" managers. I have been watching this phenomenon for a long time, and I want to share a few thoughts on this matter. And I hope you will see that the time now is exactly the same as it has always been.
Three types of people have always been present in factories, in positions at all levels. The classification is my own, so I apologize if it coincides or does not coincide with any of the existing ones, incl. - with your.
The first - who came just to work, such a majority. Workers, storekeepers, drivers, accountants, economists, suppliers, designers, technologists, etc. - almost all specialties. Many middle managers appointed after many years of good service are also of this type. Good, nice, honest people. But there is also a minus - they, by and large, are indifferent to the enterprise where they work. They don't want the company to fall apart, or cut staff, or start making any changes, because. they are waiting for a violation of the stability of life - the most unpleasant event for them.
The second are those who came to create, improve and move forward. It is to create, and not to be going to create, to prepare to create, discuss, plan or agree on the creation of something. Silently, stubbornly, with soul, sparing no effort and time. There are few such people. People of the second type sincerely love their enterprise, but here's the interesting thing: they don't improve because they love, they love because they improve. They have a feedback system when you start to love what you care about. Also, dog breeders fall in love with each of their pets, because there is no love before buying it, it appears in the process. People of the second type love every job, every enterprise, and sincerely want, try and do it better.
Actually, these are the Prophets, whom no one wants to notice. Wrongly expressed - they are noticed, known, appreciated and loved. People of the first type. And why they never stand at the helm, I think, is already clear. Because there are people like number three.
The third type is those who came to receive. In fact, another word fits there, from the modern lexicon, but I will not stoop to their own level, and I will try to express my idea in a civilized Russian language. I hope you understand me.
People of the third type were always present at the enterprises, but they were called differently. In Soviet times, these were, as a rule, political workers, and the children of other, higher-ranking political workers. There was little harm from them, because. they didn't have to do anything to... It doesn't matter. They didn't have to do anything. They came to receive and they received. Just like that, because they are from the caste.
In leadership positions involving real work, decision-making and responsibility, then there were people of either the first or second types. In another way it was simply impossible - the planned economy worked. It is now, with poor management, the enterprise may simply disappear, incl. physically, turning into another shopping center. In Soviet times, the plant could disappear only by order - as, for example, during the evacuation of 1941-42. It was, in a way, the system's self-defense against inefficient management.
In the 90s there was a failure - people of the third type practically disappeared from the shops. We can only mention 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 raider seizures. But, I repeat, they did not particularly interfere in the matter, only at the level of the general working capacity of the plant (during the capture, it was absent, for natural reasons).
You know the people of the third type, which are now present in almost all enterprises, these are the very “effective” managers. They come to the factory to receive. But not just to receive - to receive within the "theme". I apologize, I could not find a decent and understandable synonym for this "topic". The word, in itself, is not bad, but the meaning that is invested in it does not withstand any criticism.
The meaning is simple: to see a popular “topic”, read a couple (at best) books on it, remember the first moves to introduce the “topic” (as Ostap Bender knew the first move of a chess game), and competently “sell” yourself. For each component there is a lot of information on the Internet, especially on the "sale" as a universal, inter"thematic" practice.
"Them" is full. The first, as far as I remember, the site creators came to us in the late nineties. Then this service cost just a lot of money, so the director did not go for such investments.
Then there was automation, on early versions of the now popular platform. These guys have already managed to get into us, and, in general, there was a need, especially in the field of accounting.
Then came certification according to the international standards of the ISO series. Perhaps, I have never seen anything more unreasonable, and at the same time brilliant, in my life. You will immediately understand the unreasonableness if you think about the purpose of the system of standards: to describe the typical processes of most enterprises. It's like developing a single GOST for all industries.
In principle, nothing is impossible - if you remove the details of a particular production, you get a kind of universal standard. But what will remain in it if you remove the very details of a particular production? “Work well, work hard, love your customers, pay your bills on time and schedule production”? So even in this wording there are moments that are not relevant for several productions that I have personally seen.
What is the genius? The fact that, despite the objective unreasonableness of the idea, it sold excellently. This standard was implemented by all manufacturing enterprises in Russia. So strong is the "theme" and the ability of people of the third type to "sell" it.
Approximately in the middle of the XNUMXs, according to my observations, there was a radical change that gave rise to these very “effective” managers. You have noticed that until this moment, “themes” came to the plant from outside - they were literally external companies, contractors with whom we entered into an agreement, worked together on something, and, one way or another, parted. And in the middle of the XNUMXs, concrete people began to sprout from contractors.
These specific people caught the "theme" - there is no point in sitting in a contractor company, doing work under a contract, receiving a small piecework salary or a percentage of the amount. You have to go where the whole amount is waiting - to the factory.
The first to come were the 1C implementers. We lived for ourselves, all the factories worked, and suddenly it turned out that no one can live without automation, and, of course, on 1C. Out of nowhere, a lot of specialists appeared who perfectly understand business processes, who are able to choose the right decisions, but, for some reason, never achieve any significant result for the plant, and, at the same time, require huge sums of money for their work. Even now, a decent 1C programmer costs more than a good technologist, designer, often a chief engineer, chief accountant, financial director, etc.
Then the programmers suddenly, as if by magic, turned into IT directors. While sitting at the computer in their development environment, one could still argue about the usefulness of their work - but at least they were doing something with their hands. Having become CIOs, they stopped working altogether. To be honest, my personal opinion: the most “effective” managers are CIOs.
Following came specialists in the implementation of ISO. I myself saw how decent people, engineers who worked at our enterprise, once sensed this "theme". Literally it was. The plant decided to obtain an ISO certificate - this was necessary to obtain some contacts from representative offices of foreign companies.
They invited a consultant, a certified auditor. He came, taught, helped, got his money, but also decided to brag, and told the engineers how much he earns. As far as I remember, it was about the amount of one thousand euros per day of work of the chief auditor on the field audit. It was around 2005, the euro cost forty rubles. Imagine what kind of fire lit up in the eyes of engineers who received, God forbid, fifteen thousand rubles a month.
And all you need is to get an auditor's certificate. Of course, on-site audits do not happen every day, but there is still no end to clients, and there is a shortage of specialists - after all, few people have smelled the “topic”. And the engineers followed him. Five people left, two really became auditors - I'm not sure if they were the main ones, but they were definitely in business. True, now they vegetate somewhere in the QMS or OTK.
With the implementers of ISO, a story similar to the transformation of 1C programmers into IT directors happened - almost every plant has a quality director. Or a former auditor, or a former consultant, or a former participant in the implementation of ISO on the part of the customer. In any case - a person who sensed the "theme".
Any "themes", in my opinion, are very similar to each other. Their main feature is that no one can really explain why the plant needs them. Without slogans and attempts to sell themselves, but in the language of at least economics or elementary logic. There are few examples of successful growth in financial or economic indicators, clearly caused by automation or the introduction of a standard. And, as a rule, not from Russian practice, but from the founders of these practices, or at least their direct followers.
I observed not only engineers and programmers getting hooked on the “topic”. One familiar professor, at one time, also realized that something had to be changed, and went to the consultants. He is a really smart man, and from all the popular topics he chose Goldratt's Theory of Constraints of Systems. I studied it thoroughly, according to all sources, studied all the practice, deeply imbued it and began to “sell” myself.
At first, it went very well - the "theme" worked and generated income. But soon the "topic" went away - and, according to the professor, this does not depend on the success of applying this or that technique. It's just that there is a certain fashion created by those very "effective" managers. Either they glorify TOC, then they stop and start promoting something else - easier to understand and study, more difficult to implement (to stay in the enterprise for a long time), and with more blurred, hidden and incomprehensible results.
Enterprises react to fashion, and stop ordering the same TOC, and ask for Scrum already. The professor switched to this technique. Again, I studied it thoroughly - as it should be for a serious scientist. Both the methodology itself and those on which it is based. Now he had two instruments to sell in his portfolio.
But, surprisingly, everyone needs only the one that is heard. Literally like this: a professor comes to the director, studies the problems, and says - you need TOC. No, the director replies, we need Scrum. The professor explains in detail, in figures, that TOC will bring a real increase in profits in specific areas, due to understandable actions. No, the director says, we want Scrum. Because over there and there, Scrum has already been implemented. The professor can't stand it and offers to go for broke - to do the project for free, but get a small share of the profit increase. No, the director replies, only Scrum.
The professor no longer has a choice - he cannot sell what will help clients. He sells what customers ask for, what is in fashion, what is hyped. Moreover, he perfectly understands that the essence of the same Scrum, to put it mildly ... Not that it was copied from some source. It completely repeats several methods that existed in the Soviet Union.
For example, if anyone remembers, there were such well-trained brigades. Exactly the Scrum team (for example, the autonomous group of journalists described in the book by Jeff Sutherland in revolution-ridden Egypt). An almost completely autonomous team is given the task of making so many details. For the released volume, the foreman will receive money, which he will distribute within the team at his discretion. Brigadier is an elected position. How management is built from the inside is up to the team itself, no one interferes from outside. There are no methods, books, seminars, stand-ups, boards and other tinsel - only those methods that help to achieve results faster take root. And it worked, in every factory, without “effective” managers and self-confident young guys from social networks, in bright T-shirts, with a beard all over their face and a good knowledge of foreign languages.
If you are interested, then read a very interesting study by Alexander Petrovich Prokhorov called "The Russian Management Model". This is exactly the study - on each page there is at least one link to the source (articles in scientific journals, books, studies, biographies, memoirs). Unfortunately, such books are almost never written anymore. A modern book on management, if it contains references, is only to previous books by the same author.
In general, it is very easy to distinguish an “effective” manager. He is like a sales assistant in an electronics store. Has it ever happened to you - come to buy, for example, a phone or a laptop, take a closer look, a consultant comes up, offers help. You ask - which phone has a high-speed hard drive. What is he doing? That's right, he starts reading labels with you. Or he takes out his phone, opens the site (not the fact that his company), and searches there.
Compare, for example, with the seller of power tools in the market - the one who owns the shop for many years. We have this Sergey Ivanovich, on the radio market. He knows his product inside and out. He will always exchange if something is broken, without checks and receipts. He will always come to the buyer's home and show how to use the device. He knows nothing about phones, televisions and computers, and does not pretend to know. I chose the path - a power tool, studied it thoroughly, and it works. How many years the radio market has been operating, how much does Sergei Ivanovich's shop cost. Yes, he does not have the same turnover and profit as Leroy Merlin or Castorama. But I want to work with him, and not with a consultant from the store. Because professionalism is still important, although it is leveled, to a large extent, by the dominance of "effective" managers.
We had a teacher at the institute who liked to play jokes on students. How many years you work, so many convince everyone around: you are the most mediocre students, and every year it gets worse. His favorite joke: if you, engineers, are sent to the factory for a bucket of voltage, you will go! For the sake of interest, try asking a consultant in a store - what is the dichotomous matrix majorization of this phone? Will go find out, what do you think? I tried - he went. Because I couldn't find it on the internet.
“Themes” are changing, and there are more and more “effective” managers. I will be like my teacher, and I will say that even “effective” managers used to be better. Every year they are younger and, unfortunately, mediocre. They even forgot how to talk and discuss.
I'm not a hardheaded old bastard who argues with everyone just for the sake of arguing. I really want to understand, try to apply, and get results from what they preach. But, alas, they themselves do not understand what they are selling. They are the consultant boys from the electronics store.
I've read books on all the techniques that are on the "topics" list. I implemented some of them in production, and they brought results. For example, Kanban is not the one that suddenly became a software development management technique, but the one that was invented by Taiichi Ohno at Toyota factories and served to speed up the life cycle of products by reducing inter-operational inventory. What do you think, when another “effective” manager came to us with the intention to implement Kanban, what was our conversation about?
That it's time for me to retire. The fact that Kanban has evolved and turned into ... Here the “effective” manager got a little confused, thought, but could not really explain what the good old Kanban had turned into. Realizing that the conversation went in the wrong direction, the manager switched to aggression. He accused me of hindering progress and dragging the enterprise back to the Stone Age. Stopped talking to me - switched to the director. You know how such strange conversations go - the person seems to be answering your question, but not to you, without mentioning you, and looking at the other person. He didn't look at me anymore, he only glanced at me from time to time.
This is a rather characteristic feature of "effective" managers. Once I came across an explanation for such behavior in a film that my son recommended to me - “Smoking Here”. The meaning is simple: this is a dispute, not a trade. The task is not to convince him that he is right, but to convince me that I am wrong. And not me, but those around me. Further, the logic is simple: if I'm wrong, then he's right. Oddly enough, it works great.
It is enough to accuse me, or any other employee from the old guard, of inertia, conservatism, obstruction of change, too close attention to detail, and decision makers immediately take the side of the “effective” manager. He understands that we, people of the old school, intelligent, and, unfortunately, already quite valuing our place in the company, we simply will not stoop to his level and argue, blame, make excuses, use cunning tricks. We'll just step aside and wait.
Because no “effective” manager at a manufacturing enterprise in the real sector of the economy will stay long. He himself does not need this - he came to skim the cream and run away until they realized that he was another swindler. We, the prophets, somehow manage to support and develop the enterprise in the intervals between “effective” managers. Although, to be honest, sometimes we only manage to lick our wounds.
Recently another such flew out, CIO. True, the same King hinted that everything is not so simple there. I do not like these secrets of the Madrid court, and therefore did not become interested in more details. If he wants, he will tell. But no - nothing, and not such Kings waited out.
He just brought another "topic". Yes, it's probably better than the previous ones. Perhaps it will benefit the enterprise. It is possible that this "theme" will take root. But it's still just a "topic". Fashion, migratory bird, plywood over Paris. And all these secrets, nicknames, cunning schemes for infiltrating the plant, the director's motivation for change are just attributes that help the King "sell" himself.
Today I have an appointment with the King and the Headmaster. Apparently, there will again be a dispute for three. I'll take a couple of pills beforehand, and try not to get into pointless arguments. Health is not the same.
Source: habr.com