Management Structure & the Personnel Manual 8

[vonsteimel]

Greetings,
I'm a Mechanical Engineer working for a small "Recreational Vehicle" manufacturer. We've got about 15 full-time employees and sell about 40-50 vehicles a year. Everything we build is make to order. We've been "in development" from about the early 70's up until the early 2000's. Our product has been developed & stabilized and the business is ready for expansion.

However, up to now we've been operating as a fabrication shop. We carry a heavy "fab shop" mentality thats more reminiscent of a retirement home than a manufacturing firm. -- Largely this is the fault of management, or the lack there-of.

Among other things, I've been trying to transform the company to a manufacturing mentality and away from fab-shop/retirement home state. One of the biggest problems is our complete lack of leadership. The management structure here is almost completely flat. There is the owner/president and then there is everyone else. Such a flat structure prevents the development of "teamwork" and does a great deal of damage to moral. It also prevents any real strategy from being implemented. In part, this is because the owner leaves much to be desired in terms of "people skills" and openly admits these faults.

There are 2 assumed managers in the factory (1 for assembly/fab & 1 for composites) but their roles are blurry and informal. We created a "chain of command" diagram several years ago but it was never followed. Now, after working with the owner, I've been tasked to do whats necessary to get things in shape. One of the first things I intend to do is reenact this "chain of command" and get it working. The owner has agreed to follow any such "structure" but will take some work to get it fully implemented. One of the pros of such "chain" is the reduction of people dealing with the owner, which will be limited to just a few managers. It then becomes much easier to foster a positive owner/manager relationship when only dealing with a few individuals. It also will act as a "check valve" to prevent the "poor people-skills" from flooding the factory & drowning moral.

My question is how should I "document" the Chain-of-command policy? The most significant change is its effect on communication, as now the "president" will be working only with a few upper managers instead of every individual employee. Those managers will then be responsible for implementing & maintaining whatever policies/strategies we decide to implement next.

So I figure the best way to start it is with a revision to the personnel manual(which would be more symbolic than anything), followed by individual employee reviews (which are due anyway) in which we can briefly discuss the changes & their role in it.

I've looked everywhere and I have yet to find a good example of a "management structure" being described in an employee handbook/personnel manual. Does anyone have any good examples? Otherwise, how does a company document the operation of its management structure and/or its communication chain?
Thanks,

VS

 

[kylesito]

Very interesting situation and it sounds like you will be in a good position when it finally comes through for your own career.

As far as an example, I have seen it best laid out with a pictorial "tree" type format. Less description and more of a visual representation of who reports to who. This was inserted directly into the manual.

I am not sure if this is what you meant by example or not but I personally found it very helpful to see it in this way.

Your strategy of putting it out there and then conducting reviews or individual meetings to make sure everyone is on the same page is the right approach I think. You may want to offer the initial roll out in 2 phases though. First, put your idea/structure together and pitch it but then allow the review meetings to be a chance for individuals to chime in and offer suggestions on making the structure work more efficiently...(for instance, maybe employee A currently deals directly with manager B because its very efficient to do so and the implementation of a system that doesn't allow this would hinder efficiency). Also, by giving employees a chance to put their thoughts into it before the final roll out, it will help to ensure they "buy into" the new program and therefore may be more likely to go along with it instead of maintaining the status quo.

Not sure if this is the help you were looking for or not but good luck!




PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi

 

[boottmills]

The closest thing I have seen to this is an org chart or a flow chart that was not a part of the personnel manual, but an extra appendix to the manual. I like the idea of rolling this out while giving reviews and this will also give the employees some input.

Good luck!

Boottmills

 

[Compositepro]

You sound like you are on a power trip trying to define who is allowed to talk to whom. Forbidding communication is never a good thing. Employees need clearly defined responsibilities and to be held accountable for accomplishing them. Little of what you say addresses this. Focus on getting people busy doing the things they should be doing and you will not have the time to do other things.

If you are in a power struggle with someone else, well that is not unusual, but it sounds like you are trying to run a prison camp rather than a factory.

 

[SLTA]

The company I used to work for before going solo had the general plebians, the directors (ie managers), and the president, in that order. Everyone knew that problems went to your manager first and they were usually solved. However, the president had an open-door policy so anyone could come talk to him at any time. I liked it this way, a lot. It felt organized yet friendly.

 

[drawoh]

vonsteimel,

Is the manager backing you up on this? You have no chance of success whatsover unless he does.

--
JHG

 

[MikeHalloran]

According to the Army leadership principles I managed to absorb before not joining the Army, an outfit of 15 people should be organized into not more than two squads, with two squad leaders under the Top Guy. Is that what your org chart looked like?

Regardless, I think you have just wandered into a swamp of unimaginable depth and breadth. It's sort of like a Florida mudhole. (*)


* Ed Hertfelder, one of my favorite writers, used to write for "Dirt Bike", and ride "enduros", which are sort of like a TSD rally, minus the pavement and minus two wheels. In a place like the New Jersey Pine Barrens, the assigned routes often go through mudholes, where most riders get stuck, fall off, and otherwise clog up the works, and the winning riders enter the mudhole, zip through it, and ride out the other side. Ed said it took him a few Florida enduros to realize that in a Florida mudhole, there is no other side.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[patprimmer]

As one of the old troglodytes actually owns the joint, his will will prevail. While he might agree with you in theory, unless he agrees deep down, when push comes to shove he will not support you. I suspect he really likes being in a custom fab shop AND HE OWNS IT.

What role has he employed you in. Are you sure you actually heard what he said as opposed to what you wanted to hear.

He has been in business a long time and presumably makes enough to pay the bills. How long have you been there and have you previously run a business with a better record of success than this one. If he once made good money, but it has declined to the point where viability is now an issue, maybe real change is in order, otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the owner truly wants the business to get into production, maybe the best idea is to split into two departments at least with regards to management. One to make the established design and another to continue with custom fab and development so your production model is not an obsolete old piece of junk compared to other offerings in the market in 10 years time.

If this is actually lead by your desire to have power rather than the currently successful owners will, and you push it, you will soon be looking for a new job.

Oh, how long have most of these disgruntled employees been there and how long have you been there.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[berkshire]

Herr vonsteimel,
Pat Primmer said,
"""As one of the old troglodytes actually owns the joint, his will will prevail. While he might agree with you in theory, unless he agrees deep down, when push comes to shove he will not support you. I suspect he really likes being in a custom fab shop AND HE OWNS IT."""

As Pat says, If you do not have the owner onboard 100% you are whistling in the wind.
You have to show the owner what is in it for him, and if he has any reservations about that, you are done for.
B.E.


The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor

 

[bigTomHanks]

It sounds like you are already 5 miles up the creek without your paddle. I strongly suggest that if you need a structured work environment then you should either join the military or get a job at a larger corporation. If you are frustrated by employees who bypass you and go to the owner do not take it personal. Employees do these things for various reasons and it's usually because when they do, they get the results they desire. You are merely a cog in the wheel and the owner needs you to provide engineering designs and nothing more, many would consider this an ideal situation. Also, it's obvious that the owner is content with the state of his business and has no real desire to deal with the aggervation of business expansion. If you really want to make substantial changes then consider making an offer to the owner to buy the business and run it how you feel fit. Please don't take offense to what I have said but everyone has a place that they need to be and for you this company is not the place right now.

 

[Jboggs]

Many years ago a large engineering firm I worked for decided to adopt one the the buzzword ideas of the time: "Total Quality Management". The "announcement" clearly stated that it had the complete support of top management, that the cultural change had to be from the top down, and that it would require the commitment of every employee. The first step was for all employees to go through a week long training seminar during which their regular duties were to be covered by others. They were NOT to be interrupted by work requirements for ANY reason. I was in the training session for the first week. The president of the company was in the same session. He lasted for half of the first day. We completed our training but never saw him again. Then implementation began. The company spent untold thousands of dollars on travel, consultants, meetings, planning sessions, more training, etc. You know where this is headed don't you. You got it. The whole thing was a huge waste of money. The only changes in the way they did business were what I would call window-dressing to impress clients with what a forward-thinking company they were. Management may have really believed they were going to change when they embarked on this plan but the very first time the rubber met the road, they folded. I think you are headed to the same destination.

I would recommend that try to have some heart-to-heart discussions with the owner. Ask him for examples of how he thinks HE might have to change. Test him to see if he really believes that this change must START with him and flow down from there. Listen to his words. Is he saying "WE" have to change, or is he saying "I" have to change? has he ever had any personal experience in a large scale successful manufacturing environment? Does he have a model in his head of how that would work? Of how it would be different from how he is doing things now? Or is he just picturing an end goal of widgets pouring out the door by the thousands without really understanding how to get there?

 

[vonsteimel]

Wow... People really like to jump to conclusions huh? I've been through about everything mentioned here. It sounds like there aren't many people who have walked the walk, aye? I could write about 100 page response to all the off-topic posts here but it wouldn't do any good, as I don't need help with those topics... Lets not major on the minor here, try and stick to the question.

Bootmills: I've got the org-chart/flow-chart but now I have to decide how to briefly describe its use & where to put it. My first notion is the personnel manual... But this is the main question; how to other companies handle this?

How do other companies define their management structure & it's application/use? Where do the put such a definition? A simple org-chart doesn't tell much about the duties of each "position" and the relationships between them. Do they just rely on word-of-mouth? (i doubt not) I know it's not handled with a strict & exacting rule book but any input on the actual question would be appreciated.
Thanks,

VS

PS: Those who say "if the owner/manager doesn't back you up 100% you have no chance of success" are full of it. What matters is 3 things: 1) that the owner/manager admits that they aren't sure how to fix the problem. 2) They trust you & believe in your abilities. 3) They will listen to what you have to say and allow you the opportunity to prove the unproven. *Note: please don't post any response to this Post-script message... Im looking for answers to the above question.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Oh.

Well, maybe you'd be happy with the ISO model, where everyone has a formal written job description, that they can cite mostly from memory, and can explain in excruciating detail when challenged by an auditor.

Each job description defines from whom one accepts orders and to whom one gives them, so an org chart is encoded in the complete set of job descriptions, even if it is not graphically documented.

It's important to understand that everyone does _only_ and _exactly_ what's in the job description, and that "does everything", "does as asked", "jack of all trades" and such are not acceptable. The descriptions have to be so detailed that, e.g., if someone doesn't show up for work, a lawyer could read the job description and do the job in a satisfactory manner.

In a complete set of ISO documents, the job descriptions may refer to other documents, typically standards and procedures, and the documents' references generally form a tree structure, with the company's mission statement at the apex.

I've seen such a set of documents produced, in about three years. I think you can buy template sets, but you still have to customize the instances to your specific operation; figure a man-year at least.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[bigTomHanks]

Print your org chart on the company toilet paper cause that's what everyone is going to do with it.

 

[drawoh]

vonsteimel,

Let's try again.

I do not like you term "fab-shop/retirement home". Your guys are what I would call hackers. Your company needs to move from a hacker mentality to a manufacturing mentality. This is more complicated than it looks.

Hackers sit at their workbench and they hack with stuff until they get it working. They do not follow drawings very well if at all, and they don't like writing stuff down. Perhaps this was your job!

On the positive side, hackers will build one-off systems rapidly, at minimum cost. If they know what they are doing, they can do very high quality work.

On the down side, hackers do not have the discipline to work as part of a manufacturing team. I am generalizing here. They want to build stuff. They don't like generating pieces of paper. They like being in control of their work, which makes them reluctant to follow the instructions on your pieces of paper.

In a manufacturing organization, a whole bunch of people have to work off the same set of information. This means you have high quality documentation, and everybody uses it, and builds to it.

Org. charts are a tiny, semi-relevant detail, that would have gotten you fired by Henry Ford.

You need to take charge of engineering documentation. You need to make your designs and drawings of high quality so that everyone trusts and respects you.

You need to set up an excellent change request system. When someone reports problems, you need to respond to them promptly. You have to treat all the old hackers with respect, and your system has to work. If it doesn't, they will work around you.

It does not matter if the boss respects you. He respects all his old hackers too. In a confrontation, there is no guarantee that he will back you rather than them. It is much less likely if they are right and you are wrong. Never forget that you are reducing their control over the work they do.

Welcome to the wonderful world of office politics.

--
JHG

 

[patprimmer]

Wow... People really like to jump to conclusions huh?

Wrong, however I do like to consider all relevant facts before making recommendations. A lot of facts where missing from your OP despite its length. That in itself leans toward a conclusion that could be jumped to.

It sounds like there aren't many people who have walked the walk,

Actually I have, far to many times. I think the first one was Management by Objectives, Last one was when I actually rewrote the Mission Statement and Quality Manual including organisation chart and job descriptions into a relatively realistic document. hmmm whose jumping to conclusions now.

I could write about 100 page response to all the off-topic posts here

Unless your a verbose boffin you could probably actually do it in about three or four short sentences.

but it wouldn't do any good, as I don't need help with those topics

Actually it might as we would have enough of the picture to make informed recommendations. And just for the record, I did not jump to conclusions, I simply asked relevant questions.

But this is the main question; how to other companies handle this?

Mostly by useless lip service which is the reason for my questions.

How do other companies define their management structure & it's application/use? Where do the put such a definition? A simple org-chart doesn't tell much about the duties of each "position" and the relationships between them. Do they just rely on word-of-mouth? (i doubt not) I know it's not handled with a strict & exacting rule book but any input on the actual question would be appreciated.
Thanks,

The best place to start is to walk around and ask people what they are actually doing, and what lead them to do it. Find out exactly what happens and why and then think about the impact of changes.

Those who say "if the owner/manager doesn't back you up 100% you have no chance of success" are full of it.

Sadly it sounds like you will find out the hard way that in fact they have been there, done that and are spot on.

Note: please don't post any response to this Post-script message... Im looking for answers to the above question.

When and only when you buy this site will I follow posting policy set by you. Until then I will stick by the policy of those who actually OWN IT.


If the above is not acceptable, please type your acceptable answer here so I don't get it wrong next time. That way you can get the exact answer you want.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[vonsteimel]

MikeHallowran: This strategy has been approached before but does not lend itself to our company. In order for "everyone [to have] a formal written job description", it takes a huge amount of resources to implement successfully. These are resources we don't have, and would best be spent somewhere else if we did. Our operation encompasses a massive variety of tasks. We basically have to accomplish everything Toyota does (aside from development), except with only 15+ people. Formal written job descriptions are not an option right now. -- Formal "areas of responsibility" are more like where we're moving. These responsibilities are somewhat assumed in the factory (when everything is going right). But when something goes wrong or its closing time, no one wants any responsibility. This makes it very difficult to create accountability.

I've found that if you want to create accountability you have to designate authority, which adds up to responsibility in the end. In other words, nobody wants to be accountable for something they have no control over (a no brainer, eh?)

So, we're going to assign "areas of responsibility" in the factory (which is setup in a cellular fashion) which are formally assigned to each individual "bay member" (or cell member). The managers will then be formally assigned responsibility for a series of bays/cells. Along with each "formal assignment of responsibilities" we will define some key criteria which they are expected to meet & will ultimately be judged (by their supervisors).

bigTomHanks: lol, funny. But it's backwards from what I've actually been experiencing. The employees fully support the concept but are questioning whether or not the president will actually follow it and allow True authority to be designated -- which I already know he will not 100%, but he will through time after encouragement & help from EVERYONE. It's about creating unity (but not a union) within the factory so that we work towards a common purpose -- Your first remark was waaay out there too. It's not about the employees "bypassing" me (which they should because I am not their manager), it's about the president "bypassing" the "assigned" supervisors... Sounds like you're a little sour from your own experiences. You also seem a little short on management knowledge too, no?... We're all merely "a cog in a wheel" at some level.
I have held much discussion with the owner about my role and am confident in the direction I'm taking it. Our business needs structure in order to expand, not engineering designs. Without the proper structure, we cannot control to quality nor the integrity of the "engineering designs" & the corresponding documentation.... It's not that the owner has no "desire" to deal with the aggravation of business expansion, he doesn't have the knowledge nor the people-skills required to advance the business beyond this point.
Before, he was able to micro-manage the business throughout the development stage but now the business demands far more than anyone could ever micro-manage and "the wheels of time" have reduce his abilities to micro-manage as well. There is a point at which a single individual cannot keep up with the demands of micro-management, no matter how knowledgable or good they are (esp. in a fully encompassing business like ours). We are at that point. and either we stay at our current position (business-wise) and let all our potential go to waste, wait for the owner to die and then go find other jobs --- or we rally together, setup what needs setup, unite our cause and you'll be seeing us in the 2020 superbowl commercials.... and we're not willing to stand and wait so that only leaves one alternative...
Thanks,

VS

 

[TenPenny]

Forgive me for saying, but this sounds like a very complicated solution for 15 employees. How many layers of supervisors and managers do you feel you need?

As for the comment that a 'flat' structure makes teamwork impossible and ruins morale, well, if that is your starting assumption, you're guaranteed to avoid success.

 

[MikeHalloran]

Have you figured out how authority and responsibility are assigned _now_?

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[HDS]

Where I have seen the org chart maintained and published it was a separate document from the policy manual.

If you put it in the manual use job titles not peoples names.

We just had a revision of the policy manual and training classes. I never saw the org chart.