In my current role the Admin Manager, who is responsible for dealing with the property manager, reports to me.We have been having some issues with the building and the lack of action by the Property Manager which prompted the following story from a long time collegue. Here is his story about a Property Manager.
As I waded through the Ganges delta this morning to the lift still smelling of the decomposed remains of rats in the bottom of the lift shaft, I was reminded of a lesson I learned about property managers a few years ago.
A few years ago when I was younger I was a manager at X hospital and because my wife was pregnant at the time I was assigned managerial responsibility for the Maternity service, a fair call I thought as in the judgement of our leader of the time I was more expert in such matters than Geoff.
The first issue I was confronted with was the extreme temperatures suffered during summer by birthing mothers due to the lack of air conditioning in the maternity hospital. We summoned the property manager, who will be known as 'A' and I will reserve any comments as to his IQ. 'A' immediately entered what I came to discover was property manager mode. He first offered the opinion that the temperature wasn’t that high compared to the outside temperature of 25c and that it didn’t seem to him to be that hot (though one could observe a trickle of sweat down the side of his face). After some pressure from myself, the chief midwife ('J') and the CMFIC ('M'), 'A' agreed to do something. OK we said, how long? "a week", and we left with a sense of partial victory.
After two weeks of no response and heading towards February, we confronted 'A' who entered property manager phase two, “oh, yes, sorry, I haven’t had a chance, I have been busy, give me another week”. On this occasion we set a binding time and he returned in a week to enter phase three, obfuscation (a word Geoff cannot pronounce so I love using it). “Yes, I have had a look, it will be very complicated and very expensive and we don’t have any money”. We further prevailed upon him, but discovered a brick wall.
At this stage we decided a tactical retreat was appropriate and I consulted my colleagues 'J' and 'M' who disclosed a gem of information – “he does this every year”. He stalls us, first he will offer to investigate, then he will forget, then it’s too expensive and complex and next he will say that we have to prove our case by measuring the temperature for a month, then we have an argument about what is the right temperature for birthing and finally winter comes and we lose our sense of energy”. What a gem of information and to some extent similar to what we are facing with our equivalent of 'A' and the Ganges Delta.
Armed with this information we reengaged and sure enough the next phase emerged, "you will have to prove your case". We immediately pulled out last year’s results and after he protested that it was a particularly hot summer last year, we confronted him with our knowledge of his pattern of procrastination. It was not necessary for me to play bad cop as our chief midwife and our CMFIC had imposing personalities and their usual hearts of gold had turned to granite.
We offered the opportunity for a discussion with the CEO where we would discuss the several years he had delayed any action on the very high temperatures in the maternity hospital through his delaying strategies and sure enough he changed his mind and after a few days came up with a creative solution that saw air conditioning installed as part of a revamp of the maternity hospital that was opened by Joan Bolger (a productive mother herself) a few months later.
Perhaps the moral of this story is that you need to get the 'A' for our building, pin him to the ground and place a stiletto heal on his throat and he might perform. We must also never forget that there is a problem, when winter comes or when it stops raining, because that is what property managers live for, problems going away without them having to lift a finger or part with a single dollar.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Curse of Multiple Breed Societies
The following is a letter I wrote to the Horse & Pony magazine in NZ . It is published as their letter of the month in the September issue. It was written in support of Kevin Cholmondeley-Smith’s Show Scene column, ‘Too Many Cooks’ in the July issue of H&P.
Apart from a strong interest in horses, I work in organisation development, that is, working to help organisations become high performers and become great places to work where staff are highly engaged in the purpose of the business. ‘Engaged’ in this sense is a positive involvement as opposed to selfish, negative and divisive behaviour.
In any organisation the aim is for everyone to believe in the common purpose and to commit to collectively achieving that purpose. The employment selection process, if conducted properly, ensures that only such people make it through. The combined energy of this collective is the driving force behind organisational success.
The selection process for membership of an organisation such as a breed society is not so robust. The usual requirement for membership is either to have one of the breed or have an interest. There is no selection process to determine the true motivation or psychometric profile of the individual, as we do in business.
Breed societies are very important, especially where they are supporting breeders of purebred animals and maintain a true stud book, in which, as Kevin noted, “…we can track full pedigrees and verify parentage.”
Of course the development of registers for cross breeds probably causes the blood of purists to run cold, but I understand the interest as many cross breed to develop ‘types’ such as the NZ Sport Horse.
To a certain extent I have been an observer of both the emergence and proliferation of societies. I have been directly associated with one over a considerable period of time which works well with everyone sharing the common purpose, and I am a Life Member of that organisation. The same cannot be said for the other two. One has, after some considerable effort and a threat from the European parent body, come together in an uneasy truce. The other is embroiled in petty and personal bickering.
Both the latter organisations have consumed considerable non productive energy. Much of the division and proliferation is driven by personalities and the fervent desire of some to exert their dominance over others, no matter what the cost, for purely selfish personal reasons – often disguised as some righteous greater purpose. Much of the behaviour is emotional claptrap and shouldn’t be tolerated.
I do wonder at peoples readiness to fan or contribute to disunity, then offer the disunity as a reason why they won’t sit on committees or otherwise involve themselves productively in the common cause. And I agree with Kevin’s proposition that; “…this proliferation of registers weakens the industry.” It does nothing to support either the Pure Breeds or the New Zealand breed.
Kevin’s proposition that we, ‘tighten things up’, should be universally supported by the equestrian community. His view that, “…our shows would suddenly have greater relevance and leave classes with more meaning…” makes sense. I for one am happy to engage in discussion with positive people to look to a more rational approach for the breed organisation environment to “…breed produce and offer New Zealand winners on every level for the many disciplines we aspire to.”
Those who can’t engage positively need not apply.
In any organisation the aim is for everyone to believe in the common purpose and to commit to collectively achieving that purpose. The employment selection process, if conducted properly, ensures that only such people make it through. The combined energy of this collective is the driving force behind organisational success.
The selection process for membership of an organisation such as a breed society is not so robust. The usual requirement for membership is either to have one of the breed or have an interest. There is no selection process to determine the true motivation or psychometric profile of the individual, as we do in business.
Breed societies are very important, especially where they are supporting breeders of purebred animals and maintain a true stud book, in which, as Kevin noted, “…we can track full pedigrees and verify parentage.”
Of course the development of registers for cross breeds probably causes the blood of purists to run cold, but I understand the interest as many cross breed to develop ‘types’ such as the NZ Sport Horse.
To a certain extent I have been an observer of both the emergence and proliferation of societies. I have been directly associated with one over a considerable period of time which works well with everyone sharing the common purpose, and I am a Life Member of that organisation. The same cannot be said for the other two. One has, after some considerable effort and a threat from the European parent body, come together in an uneasy truce. The other is embroiled in petty and personal bickering.
Both the latter organisations have consumed considerable non productive energy. Much of the division and proliferation is driven by personalities and the fervent desire of some to exert their dominance over others, no matter what the cost, for purely selfish personal reasons – often disguised as some righteous greater purpose. Much of the behaviour is emotional claptrap and shouldn’t be tolerated.
I do wonder at peoples readiness to fan or contribute to disunity, then offer the disunity as a reason why they won’t sit on committees or otherwise involve themselves productively in the common cause. And I agree with Kevin’s proposition that; “…this proliferation of registers weakens the industry.” It does nothing to support either the Pure Breeds or the New Zealand breed.
Kevin’s proposition that we, ‘tighten things up’, should be universally supported by the equestrian community. His view that, “…our shows would suddenly have greater relevance and leave classes with more meaning…” makes sense. I for one am happy to engage in discussion with positive people to look to a more rational approach for the breed organisation environment to “…breed produce and offer New Zealand winners on every level for the many disciplines we aspire to.”
Those who can’t engage positively need not apply.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Enzo Ferrari
The 14th of August is the date Enzo Ferrari died in 1988. His life makes an interesting story which I have read a couple of times courtesy of the Primary Health management team of the Canterbury Area Health Board. I had facilitated a strategic planning workshop over a couple of days at the Hamner Springs Hospital. Hardly celubrious but practical. As a thank you they gave me some book vouchers which I used to buy the Broch Yates book, 'Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races, the Machine'. The team signed the book with some appreciative inscriptions - that was 1991.
Enzo fascinated me, I wondered how I would have managed working with such a man. It seems he had more of an affinity with the mechanics than with the drivers and had a fetish for cleanliness. He would be in the workshops every evening at 5pm, 'like clockwork'. Every tool had to be clean and in place before the staff could go home.
In the earlier days the Ferrari road cars were little more than detuned race machines. Apparently they were pretty awful to drive unless on open roads and at full throttle. They boiled over in city driving. There is a lovely story of how an american who was selling the cars in California went to Modena to complain that these status cars could not be driven in Los Angeles traffic without over-heating. Ferrari was shocked and summoned one of their latest cars and took the american for a drive through the narrow and winding streets. Ferrari kept an eye on the temperature gauge. As it started to climb, Ferrari would stop and point out some famous landmark or stop by a cafe.
The late '50s saw the introduction of the new formula two cars referred to as a rear engine (in reality more mid-engine). Although new drivers such as Bruce McLaren adopted the radical new engines and started to dominate, Enzo Ferrari remained distainful, summarily dismissing them as 'oxen pulling the cart'.
Ferrari himself was a workaholic, with no time taken off for weekends and holidays, and there was extreme pressure on his senior staffers to be the same.
In the early 60's Ferrari was negotiating to sell to Ford. After discussions over time the deal was to be finalised between Ferrari and Donald Frey. Ferrari opened by asking Frey, "if I wish to enter cars at Indianapolis and you do not wish me to enter cars at Indianapolis, do we go or do we not go?" Apparently Frey responded without hesitation, "You do not go." Ferrari stood up and said, "It was nice to know you." And that was the end of the negotiation.
Enzo fascinated me, I wondered how I would have managed working with such a man. It seems he had more of an affinity with the mechanics than with the drivers and had a fetish for cleanliness. He would be in the workshops every evening at 5pm, 'like clockwork'. Every tool had to be clean and in place before the staff could go home.
In the earlier days the Ferrari road cars were little more than detuned race machines. Apparently they were pretty awful to drive unless on open roads and at full throttle. They boiled over in city driving. There is a lovely story of how an american who was selling the cars in California went to Modena to complain that these status cars could not be driven in Los Angeles traffic without over-heating. Ferrari was shocked and summoned one of their latest cars and took the american for a drive through the narrow and winding streets. Ferrari kept an eye on the temperature gauge. As it started to climb, Ferrari would stop and point out some famous landmark or stop by a cafe.
The late '50s saw the introduction of the new formula two cars referred to as a rear engine (in reality more mid-engine). Although new drivers such as Bruce McLaren adopted the radical new engines and started to dominate, Enzo Ferrari remained distainful, summarily dismissing them as 'oxen pulling the cart'.
Ferrari himself was a workaholic, with no time taken off for weekends and holidays, and there was extreme pressure on his senior staffers to be the same.
In the early 60's Ferrari was negotiating to sell to Ford. After discussions over time the deal was to be finalised between Ferrari and Donald Frey. Ferrari opened by asking Frey, "if I wish to enter cars at Indianapolis and you do not wish me to enter cars at Indianapolis, do we go or do we not go?" Apparently Frey responded without hesitation, "You do not go." Ferrari stood up and said, "It was nice to know you." And that was the end of the negotiation.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Do Gadgets save work or make work?
Many today complain that they are so busy – they have to work long hours. Yet they are seemingly anxious to ensure that they are continuously and urgently in contact or available to all of those who might contribute to the intrusive demand on their time.
Technology and our desire to have gadgets belies the fact that we are not happy working so hard and so long. And the research shows that New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the world.
There is something of snobbery. Witness what happens when you go to a meeting and someone produces the latest gadget, especially if it is not yet generally available. Everyone will zero in and the ‘thing’ will demand the attention of all, pushing all other thought and purpose into a back corner.
My blackberry and Tablet laptop are great tools. I find them so helpful in my life, making it easier for me to maintain my varied work and community interests. I think the difference is between being controlled by, or being in control of them.
These things work for me on my terms.
Whilst some might think it eccentric, I put about quite openly, that I do my email on Wednesday and answer the phone on Thursday. Those who know me will chant that mantra at those who foolishly talk about emailing me or phoning me on some other day.
There are many who are slaves and they can’t all be emergency on call doctors or special forces anti terrorist police. They are leaving home to go out and the phone rings so they rush back inside to answer the phone.
With the assistance of messaging and answer phones we can leave the electronic interference to a time that suits. It is highly entertaining to watch people lunge desperately about their person, amongst their clothes and in their bags for their mobile phone which has just buzzed. They mount this spastic search in such a way as to convince you they are about to receive a history making call or say, “Yes Prime Minister, I shall rush to the ramparts and defend the city until the army arrives!” Instead we hear, “Hi, yeah I'm good...what say you just send me an email with the details and I'll get back?”
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
NZ Managers average to middling
In June of this year the results were published of a research project for the Ministry of Economic Development, where management practices in New Zealand manufacturing firms were benchmarked against the best. These results prompted an article in the Listener July 3-9 2010. Page 54 The Works “Our slack Bosses".
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____43278.aspx]
The findings suggest that while some of New Zealand’s business are as good as any in the world, there is a substantial tail of firms that are mediocre, especially in their approach to people management. The report notes, “This is a key differentiating factor between New Zealand and better performing, more innovative countries…”.
The research findings also suggest, “that there is a link between quality of management – scored across 18 dimensions of people, performance and operations – and enterprise productivity.”
It seems New Zealand managers are ‘average to middling’.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. We have fallen steadily in terms of productivity. Or should we look at this way. Just as the numbers of management schools, management and leadership programmes, MBA’s and the like have exploded over the last few decades; New Zealand’s productivity has plummeted.
There is no shortage of research in many countries showing the positive relationship between management and productivity. The research identified key drivers of management practices in New Zealand such as; The nature and characteristics of people management, including collaborative workplace relations and an open organisational culture, are primarily determined by firms themselves rather than by the structure of the labour market. Another finding, reported that NZ managers tend to over rate their firms management performance.
The international study found increased labour market flexibility correlated with a superior people management score in a number of countries. However the New Zealand findings did not support that. Although NZ has developed a fairly flexible labour market, we do not score well in people management practices.
So let’s just recap. New Zealand’s productivity continues to fall. Further, we have known for some time that there is a direct link between the quality of management and productivity. This new research indicates that our management (in manufacturing anyway) isn’t particularly good. And their response to improving productivity? To recommend to the government employees should work a nine day fortnight and, to pass legislation requiring any employee who is away sick for a day to produce a medical certificate – like that’s going to make a difference. Maybe the employees were off because they were sick of management. Go figure!
The findings suggest that while some of New Zealand’s business are as good as any in the world, there is a substantial tail of firms that are mediocre, especially in their approach to people management. The report notes, “This is a key differentiating factor between New Zealand and better performing, more innovative countries…”.
The research findings also suggest, “that there is a link between quality of management – scored across 18 dimensions of people, performance and operations – and enterprise productivity.”
It seems New Zealand managers are ‘average to middling’.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. We have fallen steadily in terms of productivity. Or should we look at this way. Just as the numbers of management schools, management and leadership programmes, MBA’s and the like have exploded over the last few decades; New Zealand’s productivity has plummeted.
There is no shortage of research in many countries showing the positive relationship between management and productivity. The research identified key drivers of management practices in New Zealand such as; The nature and characteristics of people management, including collaborative workplace relations and an open organisational culture, are primarily determined by firms themselves rather than by the structure of the labour market. Another finding, reported that NZ managers tend to over rate their firms management performance.
The international study found increased labour market flexibility correlated with a superior people management score in a number of countries. However the New Zealand findings did not support that. Although NZ has developed a fairly flexible labour market, we do not score well in people management practices.
So let’s just recap. New Zealand’s productivity continues to fall. Further, we have known for some time that there is a direct link between the quality of management and productivity. This new research indicates that our management (in manufacturing anyway) isn’t particularly good. And their response to improving productivity? To recommend to the government employees should work a nine day fortnight and, to pass legislation requiring any employee who is away sick for a day to produce a medical certificate – like that’s going to make a difference. Maybe the employees were off because they were sick of management. Go figure!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)