The Finger-Point Philosophy
I vividly remember the scene. I was attending my first meeting as a logistics planner for a self-proclaimed “forward looking” company. I chuckled to myself as I heard buzzword after buzzword being bandied about. It was as if using the right current words somehow made you into a leader. After ten minutes, I could barely handle hearing one more “thinking out of the box” or “forward looking” statement. In truth, the trend concerned me. Everyone at the meeting was trying so hard to impress, I heard very little actually being said. And then it happened. The Vice-President of Sales asked why we were so far backordered on a particular item. Leaving the meeting after what ensued, I knew after my third day on the job that I had chosen the wrong company.
The product manager for the backordered product began by stating that he personally contacted the plant three weeks ago to ensure the product would get out on time. The head of manufacturing stated that the equipment required to make the product was scheduled for something else. He said the problem was planning. The plant planner said that the product they wanted was already three times over forecast and it was impossible to plan ahead when the forecast given by sales was so far off. I state with honesty that over three quarters of an hour was wasted without one word about what they were going to do to solve the problem. The goal was clear… find a way to stay away from the blame.
This incident proved to be all too common at this company. It became a way of survival to ensure that you could distance yourself far enough from a problem to be able to point at somebody else. When I heard the way in which upper management attacked problems, I understood the corporate culture. People were afraid to be attached to a problem because they were set out to dry. Even the VP of Sales just wanted to find someone else on the totem pole to blame if numbers went bad.
I noticed another interesting point that helped separate the team (and I stretch even to call it a team). The bonus for the sales team was completely tied to sales dollars. To them, proper planning was someone else’s concern. Total focus was on getting a sale, even if the machine required to make the product was “maxed-out,” or the product was not forecasted. The bonus for manufacturing was tied to efficiencies. Thus, if an unneeded product gave more efficiency for a piece of equipment, manufacturing wanted to make it anyway because it improved their bonus numbers. The bonus for planners was based on reduced backorder dollars. If they could convince sales a product couldn’t be sold, or convince manufacturing to make the high dollar item (regardless of overall customer satisfaction) they would achieve a higher bonus. Management had inadvertently created an environment wherein each department was working in different directions toward their own agenda. There was no concept of working together to make each other better. Is there any surprise that all three divisions failed to make their numbers toward a maximum bonus?
As a low-level manager, I tried to facilitate change. I refused to settle for that environment. Life is too short to spend so many hours in a negative environment. Amazingly, senior management was surprised by my resignation after nearly a year. I had repeatedly been told that I just don’t understand corporate life. I was told that in companies such as this, the reins must be tight and the competition fierce or else things get out of control. Each side holding each other accountable was the best way to find success. I remember asking my boss why we do not spend more time finding solutions than figuring out why we are not responsible. I was told that to get ahead, “you must always cover your [butt].”
This philosophy did not come from the middle management. Somehow they were taught what to do to “get ahead.” Were there just poor leaders working there? No, that’s not cause, although many a fine leader left when they were hamstrung from doing things right. The reality is that the corporate vision ALWAYS comes from the top. This “keep me away from the hot seat” mentality was somehow conveyed throughout the culture. It may never have been spoken, but it was most certainly created from above.
I could write a book discussing how to destroy “the finger-point philosophy” if it exists in your workplace. My organization facilitates entire courses to help leaders improve their environment. The goal of this article is simply to help others examine if “the finger-point philosophy” exists where they work and realize how harmful and unnecessary it is. If it does exist and you are senior management, call a meeting with your peers to figure out how to change the environment. And spend many an hour alone with yourself to figure out what YOU are doing wrong. There will be no better business use of your time. Three things are most surely required: First, ensure everyone is empowered, not to meet their “job requirements,” but to exceed them. Secondly, truly respect your subordinates, or find a way to get rid of them. You cannot feign respect and expect it to work, and if you do not respect your employees, you will never trust them. The third point is that you must devise goals and incentives that direct everyone toward the same vision. Everyone working in unison will ensure success. And remember, all of these things are an art, not a science. Don’t expect a formula to fix your problems… tackle them with an open mind. Finally, don’t forget that for the right type of employee, money is by no means the only incentive.
As for the rest of the team, if you are a member of “a finger-point workplace,” consider another job. The company is destined for failure.
One final note: You will not change the environment by saying the right things and using the most current total quality words. Environment change can only be facilitated through actions. Remember, I can’t hear you because what you are saying is being drowned out by what you are doing. In the end, it always is.