OK, this came up in conversation today, and rather than talk people's ears off about it, I will blog about it. Be warned the title is perfectly self-descriptive, in compliance with the truth-in-advertising laws.
That way you're all free to ignore my blather.
I happened to overhear a meeting today between the new manager of a gas station and his assistant managers and shift leaders, and I noticed some things missing.
See, back in the day, businesses often mirrored military practices in several ways; this may be due to the fact that a few decades ago, a lot more of the management people had actual, real, live military experience in their backgrounds.
One of the ways they used to mirror military practice is training upwards.
I will explain.
In combat situations, nothing is guaranteed. You can be going along, happy as a clam, a good, reliable private, when all of a sudden a mortar round comes in and turns your platoon CP into hors d' combat, and suddenly your chain of command is broken. Your lieutenant and platoon sergeant are out of action, maybe permanently.
Now, there are a few ways to deal with that.
You can fire a bunch of rounds off on full automatic, aimed at nothing in particular, while tears stream down your cheeks and you swear at the injustice of fate; this is the Hollyweird response.
You can hunker down and keep doing what you're doing, hoping someone else will step up; this is what a lazy soldier does.
Or you can do what soldiers are SUPPOSED to do, which is, everybody bumps up - by seniority - the required number of steps necessary to fill in the missing slots until you get replacements, medevac your casualties, and continue the mission until relieved or the mission is complete.
The way this gets done is because, in general, the Army (at least,) trains you not only for the job above yours, but TWO steps up; this way when these unfortunate little things happen, it won't be TOO jarring when you get handed a squad leader radio.
Now, they don't expect you to be as good a squad leader as the original one, but since he's busy being a section leader, and the section leader is busy being the platoon sergeant, suck it up.
Now, in business, this training used to take the form of, for example, shift leaders learning to be assistant managers, assistant managers learning to be store managers, and so on up the food chain.
Sadly from what I see in businesses these days, it doesn't anymore.
And this is a bad, bad thing.
Here's why.
One of the primary motivating factors in any job is your potential to better your own circumstances. Maybe by money, maybe by knowledge, maybe by experience, but bettering your own circumstances.
One significant way to do that is to gain advancement within the ranks at your current employer. If you can learn the jobs above you, then you can eventually be promoted into them, and then YOU can be the guy who doesn't have to work the register, gets to sit down most of the day, and drives a Lexus.
But here's the thing: the linchpin in that plan, is your ability to learn the jobs above your own.
If you can't learn those jobs, then you can't be promoted into them, either, and that means that if you were hired as a cashier, 17 years from now you will still be one.
This is something the unions get wrong, as well; if one hundred percent of your ability to advance is based on seniority, not merit, and there is an absolute cap on how far you can advance at all, well...
...Where is your motivation to be loyal to a company?
See, businesses used to pride themselves on the loyalty of their employees; now they seriously discuss what constitutes an "acceptable" turnover rate.
You know what an acceptable turnover rate is?
None.
And if that's not what you have, instead of trying to capitalize on that fact, you should be trying to figure out why, and fix it.
But businesses these days have fallen into a trap, you see; they've lost their long view. They're so caught up in the immediate, short-term bottom line that they've lost sight of the long-term damage their business practices are doing to the core business.
Here's an example.
Take two gas stations, both with equivalent facilities.
One has happy, or at least convincingly faked cheerful, employees; the store is clean; the employees know where everything is, it's brightly lit, all the products are neatly displayed, and all the equipment at the store works; there are enough employees in the store to do all the work needed and take care of customers, so there's not - or a short - line. Their price for gas is a nickel a gallon more than the other station.
The other has a lone, surly clerk who grunts at you and asks if you want anything else, but won't make eye contact; three of the overhead bulbs are burned out, products are displayed sloppily, the floor has something sticky on it, the soda fountain is partly broken, and there's a line. Their price for gas is a nickel a gallon less than the other station.
Don't lie; you've been to both these stores.
Which one did you have a better experience in?
Which one - given that you're not so poor that that nickel REALLY FUCKING COUNTS - would you go to next time?
See, in the short term, the first station is losing money. They're paying more in payroll, and their workers are happy, which means they're doing something to keep them so. They're also spending the money to keep the store maintained, which isn't free. They compensate for this with the extra nickel in price at the pumps.
In the short term, the second store is saving a fortune. They only have one guy on duty, so their payroll is way lower, they're not doing anything to keep their employees happy, because screw that guy; if he quits, they can find some other illiterate clown to run the register on overnights for $8 an hour. They're leaving stuff broken until customers complain, so they don't have to spend the money for maintenance, and if they knock just a nickel off the price of gas, people will come in to their store over the other one, despite all the flaws.
Right.
But long term?
People go into that second station...
...Once.
They don't become regular customers; you never become a regular at a place where you get terrible service.
They complain, and that should be a huge, glaring sign to upper management, because it takes effort to do so; if you pissed someone off enough to go look up the number for customer support, or chase down a manager, and actually file a complaint, that person is likely pissed off enough to tell all their friends not to frequent your business either - especially if your customer service people are as well-trained and motivated as the guy you have on the cash register.
Long-term, the other station wins out, because they have not only the flow of walk-ins, but regular customers as well; they develop what Amway loves to call a "residual income stream," which means income that keeps coming regardless of the flow of your day-to-day business.
So, what keeps the employees happy?
The possibility of advancement, for one. How many of you, when you were a kid, working some minimum-wage job, thought to yourself "this sucks, and I don't want to do it forever."
Most of you, right?
But how many of you, in that SAME JOB, looked at the manager, driving a nicer car, wearing nicer clothes, living in a nicer house, and said "man, that guy's got it made," or some variation thereof?
Most of you, right?
See, when you CAN go from point A to point B, when your hard work in the entry level pays off in advancement to higher echelons, you not only have a motivation to do well at your current position, but you have loyalty to your company; you don't want to give up the potential you've invested yourself in, even if another similar position is offering a dollar more an hour.
But when that avenue is closed off, when you know that your entry level job will stay that way, because they're saving a buck by replacing you rather than promoting you, you have no motivation to do well; you have no loyalty; you have no investment in the company.
So.
What I heard today was a manager, talking to his subordinates.
THIS INDIVIDUAL seemed to have a clear understanding of that, although I wasn't so hot on some of his other ideas; but he mentioned several times that he wanted to ensure that his subordinates were learning the jobs above them.
Good for him.
Because when you close that off, and every management job says it requires years of experience that no-one can ever get because they aren't permitted to move upwards, what you do is create a permanent class of perpetual cashiers in your company. And they know that's what you've done. And they'll bail at the first chance they get to earn a few pennies an hour more.
And you become store number two.
Most big-box retailers refer to that as "an acceptable level of incompetence."
You've shopped at those stores; IS it acceptable?
Is it really?
