Is this too autocratic? 2

[MeGustaXL]

I am responsible for co-ordinating a large database of fault reports and their associated investigation paperwork.

To this end, I use Outlook Tasks to assign the FRs to the appropriate engineering specialist for investigation.

I simply raise a task, attach the FR and a blank Investigation report, and add the following boilerplate text:

Dear N. Gineer,

Please see the attached Failure Report, number #####, then complete the Investigation Report form and return it to me when you have investigated the fault.

Please note that the 'Reply Due' date for this action is DD/MM/YY

Thank you,

My Signature

One or two of the investigating engineers have said that they feel this is too dictatorial, and 'who am I to be telling them what to do?'

What is the opinion of the Forum?

Chris

Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My word's just a whisper, your deafness a SHOUT!


Ian Anderson

 

[LizSara]

I would change it to:

Dear N. Gineer,

Please see the attached Failure Report, number #####.

Once you have completed your investigation please return the Investigation Report to me at this address.

Please note that the 'Reply Due' date for this action is DD/MM/YY

Thank you,

My Signature

Only because it comes across that you are telling them what to do rather than asking them to return a form to you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. ~ Nietzsche"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[KenCunningham]

I think I'd add:

Please note that the 'Reply Due' date for this action is DD/MM/YY. I would be grateful if you could let me know of any slippage and causes if appropriate.



I want to be good, is that not enough?

 

[MeGustaXL]

Thank you LizSara, that's just the wording I should've used in the first place!

I have changed my Task template and await responses to my next set of orders commands requests

Have a STAR-shaped object!

Chris

Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My word's just a whisper, your deafness a SHOUT!


Ian Anderson

 

[LizSara]

Ooh thanks, that's my first star

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. ~ Nietzsche"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[MeGustaXL]

Ken, I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge your input!

I failed to mention that we have a weekly meeting, at which I present the list of outstanding FR's, then it's over to the Inv. Eng's to flannel their way out of trouble for any slips or delays - I think the polite nudge is just enough.

<off topic>
Does anyone else think that last sentence was too long?
</off topic>

Chris

Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My word's just a whisper, your deafness a SHOUT!


Ian Anderson

 

[ESquared]

Here's my proposal. To me, this feels VERY different. This feels like a team, operating together. It feels like you trust that the engineer wants to do his job and do it well. It feels like you are not imposing the date on him, but that the date is a constraint you both need to work under.

-----------------------------

Dear N. Gineer,

Failure report #1234 is ready for your investigation. Would you please return the attached Investigation Report to me when you've finished?

We are supposed complete this investigation by 13/12/07 so we can correct faults in a timely way and thus keep costs down. If I may assist you to avoid delays or in any other way please let me know and I will do everything in my power to help.

Thank you,

Chris

-------------

The part about "in a timely way and keep costs down" was my attempt at reminding the person of the reason for the work to be done. Whatever the reason it *does* need to be done, perhaps you can mention or hint at it. People don't like to do things that "must be done" but they do like to do things that benefit them. In a small way, if in your email you can remind the engineer of why he should be excited to do the work (my guess was, lower costs, increase profit, increase salary) then he will be more receptive to it. Even if the reward is not financial (and focusing too much on the reward sounds like you don't trust him to do excellent work without an incentive), a simple mission of "making this company's product the best possible" could be another alternative.

My premise is that most people are motivated and want do do excellent jobs, and that what most people need are not more motivation but removal of various demotivators.

When someone gets stuck in the dreary have-to-be-done part and loses the big picture, that is demotivating. "What am I doing this for? Who cares? If I'm not trusted I may as well not act trustworthily."

Perhaps this article could get you started on some of the ideas I am talking about: A Manager's Guide to Supporting Organizational Change: 10 Lessons Learned.

 

[Michael52x]

I would think that the engineer's know their job, and the responsibilities they have. Of course you are "telling" them to do this. Else they w00nt!

"Impatience will reward you with dissatisfaction" RMS Cosmics'97

 

[ESquared]

Of course you are "telling" them to do this. Else they w00nt!

Do you have to TELL them to do it, or are you just informing them so they know it is to be done? There is a world of difference in the attitude between these.

How you treat people and the messages they get from that treatment seriously affects their response.

 

[Michael52x]

Informing leaves the option knowing, or acting.
Telling means do it!

"Impatience will reward you with dissatisfaction" RMS Cosmics'97

 

[ESquared]

Michael,

From a clinical or analytical perspective, you're right. But that entirely leaves out any social or human element.

If you assume that someone will not do what they know they should do until you ORDER them, you have created an environment of distrust which in my opinion will be far more damaging to the final desired outcome than the semantic loophole (the option to not do it) left through informing instead of telling.

The engineers, if they have any intelligence and professionalism at all, understand that when they are informed of a failure report, it is now their responsibility to do some work with it. If they still do not do it, you have a larger problem than just the difference between informing and telling. You already have an individual performance problem at the attitude level (which is more critical than the action level). And if more than one engineer is having this problem, it's likely you have a serious culture issue. And that's exactly what I'm saying.

The culture you create through your actions (which convey attitudes & beliefs) matters MORE than any purely-intellectual analysis of the transaction.

Michael, if I'm reading your attitude and understanding correctly, I sincerely hope that you never are in a position of influence or authority anywhere near me.

It is a simple fact that people cannot do their jobs as well as they would like and naturally would do, in an environment of suspicion, distrust, and power-over.