Friday, June 22, 2007

Fire and Forget

(歷史部分純屬記憶片斷,需加以求證)

Aim-9 Sidewinder (即所謂響尾蛇)導彈大概是第一代比較可靠的Fire-and-forget (F&F)空對空導彈。Fire-and-forget技術會讓飛彈鎖定目標後,便會一直追蹤直至擊中並摧毀目標為止。這裡Fire的意思,是發射飛彈;而Forget的意思,是飛彈發射出去後,飛機師可以毋須理會飛彈的去向。

CK兄有一個值得借鏡的人事 case - Mani (1), (2) & (3)

對於 C.M. 來說,就只是以Mani 而言,調職或投閒置散是普遍的折衷方法,雖然有其可取之處,但以C.M. 個人的風格而言,If I were CK, I would 採取 F&F 的策略。

小弟曾於 CK兄的 blog comment中留言說:

1. Tell Mani what areas of performance you would measure and what results you would expect (it seems you are expecting those intangible results)

2. Tell Mani how you would measure (e.g. you would measure her management skill instead of blah blah blah)

3. Tell her to think about your words above and reply you the next day(s) how (or if) she would follow your suggestions. (The tactics of fire-and-forget)

The point of taking the above steps is to let Mani know her real self. She is apparently too "innocent".


其實採取以上方法之前,其實已經包含一個態度 - 必須解決 Mani。因為 Mani 以後也會冥頑不靈。

F&F言下之意,就是:Fire the Person, Forget the Person的意思,即快。而之所以仍要向Mani 問以上問題,其實只是tum Mani入局,提供機會讓 Mani 自己告訴 CK 她該被炒的原因。(後補:這個被炒/被勸退的原因,其一是為將來上勞工處的準備,其二則更重要,就是交待其他員工 ... 而這個被炒的原因,必須循著“某個”方向引導出來 ... errr... 有狐狸則使之於抹黑之用)

正如小弟曾大概的說:管理者犯事罪加一等。

Mani 被炒(或被勸退)的原因很簡單:我升得你,而你又接受,你就是管理者(我升錯你是另一回事)。你當不成管理者,我亦毋須留你。但若你自願回到本來的崗位,我會歡迎。(緊記,其實整個 F&F 的 interview過程,只是一個局)

若 Mani 不接受任何意見,便: Fire and forget (基本上會逼佢接受,但會補償代通知金,即解僱補償)。

個人來說,關鍵是管理者,只有管理者之 Quality 才會令我煩惱,30人亦然,300人亦然。

F&F 後,帶出信息給餘下四人:做管理者不是易事,你若自覺是有能者,可嘗試居之。(後補:其他信息,例如“對於不願學習的人我是不會手軟的”等等,可以隨此處理順手帶出)

就算留下 Mani,相信其生產力也等於零。所以不如慳番d精力同金錢,早d解決。


To Bravo:
That's why I said blending solutions together usually (actually: may) wreaks havoc.

(又,若果我仍然成日係 Office 打埋呢d咁既野,真係會比人 F 完再 F&F 嘞)

26 comments:

bravo said...

"F&F言下之意,就是:Fire the Person, Forget the Person的意思,即快。而之所以仍要向Mani 問以上問題,其實只是tum Mani入局,提供機會讓 Mani 自己告訴 CK 她該被炒的原因".

Hi Bros, by the way, I had my answer in mind while I said blending. I will do what Kong Chan suggested to save the valuable time - clean and clear; for eventhough I believe we can coach a person to change her personality, it takes years to do - well, I have done that before, it works! (by paintaking counseling, broad knowledge base and luck) If Fire and Forget means this, well I think your solution is even more perfect than Kong Chan's. Karen's solution was good too by looking into the matters a bit more before taking action.

Karen (Sze) said...

Well, 我冒著可能被F&F的危險講Mani件事, 我亦希望ck收到我和cm的意見後, 回應一下。

我看到有些blog友在ck的blog俾個suggestion: 整一個project俾Mani跟, report to ck。

之前我都有向ck給點建議。無錯, 呢個suggestion很好, 但係問題係Mani一直都做admin的工作(當然不排除有做marketing的工作, 若然連marketing都未做過, 真係您俾隻蕉皮Mani"跣"), 而且要自己一人搞掂(掂就係您, 衰都係您之餘, 聽執包袱也), 仲要夾硬做個project, 對ck公司而言, costing和risk都不少; 調職呢, 發生中小企身上, 未必有多餘的post調職; 仲加埋集體resign事件, 點算呢?

CM的意見較為可以實行到, 我考慮到:

1. ck一向對主管management的style奉行"放任主義", 一旦"干預", 其他主管點諗呢?

2. "若 Mani 不接受任何意見,便: Fire and forget (基本上會逼佢接受,但會補償代通知金,即解僱補償)。"個人建議做足晒labour ordinance講明要pay甚麼, 既不俾多, 也不俾少, 費時又要在勞資審裁處再見。

3. 個罪名不夠力: 俾warning可能係一個方法, 但要寫reasons和accumulate至少三次warning; 其實可以"勸"Mani自動resign, 但不成功的話, 要"fire", 會否考慮番performance和"不服從僱主合法合理的命令"? 或者一些有事實兼有證據, 令Mani was being terminated的事件?

4. 過了呢件事, 士氣和overall performance一定會低落, 要做番d事補救。

5. loss最少的方法: 留那team人, 放棄Mani。中小企要生存, 就要留一些有價值,做得o野的員工; 做management可以學, 但要肯try和接受, 改善錯處。

6. 但那team人(指每個人)的performance是否可以接受到, 定係差過Mani?

7. "就算留下 Mani,相信其生產力也等於零。所以不如慳番d精力同金錢,早d解決。" 無錯, 時間拖得耐就對公司整體(尤其是生產力)是一件壞事。

About your message - "Quoted: from me to someone I care": I will use my "Bad" English to reply you.

Karen (Sze) said...

To: Bravo

Hi, thank you for your praise.

As a "small potato", I could only solve some problems by finding out the main source of problem and looking into the matters a bit more. Think Carefully then take the necessory action.

bravo said...

To C.M.
In fact, I've not checked CK's (2)(3) (now done). Learnt a lot from the whole story. After reading "quoted from me to someone I care", I have something to share with you.. I too "wish" that my way of interacting with others would be as smooth as Tony Jar Koo. If so, I would have been much happier and smoother in many ways.

(I apologize to take your space to say a bit to Karen, as I haven't had time to write my blog)
To Karen:
Well, I like not only your practical suggestions but also you good helping heart (C.M. as well). Both of you treat C.K's case as urgent and serious matters and offers in-time and detailed suggestions. Your companies are really lucky with either of you to manage their human reasource.

火鶴 said...

豺狼兄,

FF呀Mani, CK兄都有諗過. 不過, 佢concern嘅係唔可以俾到一個message班員工知道: 群眾力量可以趕走上司.

咁, 有咩辨法可以FFF Mani(Well, CK兄負責FF, 而我則負責F), 而又俾到個正確message班女呢?

Karen (Sze) said...

Hi, Bravo.

I would like to clarify that I left the Human Resource field (maybe I will back to HR Field, but it is not a suitable timing), because I want to try something new.

"Your companies are really lucky with either of you to manage their human reasource. " Well, CM and I just use our experience plus some academic knowledge to analyse CK's situation. And my recent situation is I am just a supporting staff in an organization, but before that I did some supervision work.

As I couldn't left the message to you in your blog, I use CM's blog to reply you. (CM, please don't mind, I think you understand it! :P)

Have a nice weekend.

Karen

ak said...

C.M.兄,火兄:

「FF呀Mani, CK兄都有諗過. 不過, 佢concern嘅係唔可以俾到一個message班員工知道: 群眾力量可以趕走上司.」

依一點正正係點解AK一路都唔主張即時開鋤既主要原因...

而且,Mani曾幾何時係一個做得野,值得CK提拔既員工,佢唔適合一個Management既位置,並唔代表佢係其他位置,例如單獨運作既時候發揮唔到效果...而且,係唔同既時間,佢可能又會有唔同既表現...

如果講對於士氣既影響,AK都係講勢力既平衡,只要兩邊都可以好落台,擺平件事之後自然可以有新既空間去處理呢個問題...一野開鋤,反而回轉既空間就較少...

相對黎講,之前幾年係Buyer Market(僱主主導),依家勞力市場出左一定變化,相對比較Seller Market...一下子開鋤,人員替補,訓練,成本既影響,作為一個領導都係一個考慮...

Marshmallow said...

連續數天看到眾Blogger的留言,大多數已經斷定了Mani是一個無能的領導人。小女子則有令類的體會,其實是否Mani本身是個有才能的人,但因某些原因招人妒忌,而引申到今天這個局面?

其實小女子也多次感覺到CK公司裡的內部問題,未必是和眾人本身的能力有關。「CK行」內多女性,也可能是問題的關鍵。

C.M. said...

休息了一整天,還是頭重腳輕,但要睡又睡不著。真的討厭休息的日子才向自己告病假。

關於採取 F&F 的處理方式,其實這是小弟的一個遺憾。

坦白說,以港燦和Karen等當初的處理方式(即調職),為何不為小弟所取,並非本身不可取,而是小弟在管理上之力有不遞。

有一點是小弟的個人觀點,希望體諒,就是小弟很多時對於人事處理的觀點,並非從一個人力資源從業員的角度出發,而是從一個管理者角度出發。或許,對於HR 從業員可能會不認同兩者有何差別,但是,小弟也曾是管理者,所以對於某些人事處理,會有“怕麻煩”的天性。

1. 也因此,相對 F&F,“調職”這種方法,對於小弟是屬於高段數處理。一個高階管理者因為失誤而遭“調職”或投閒置散,對於其上司而言,是一個額外的負擔。無論在心理上,工作量上,都有所增加。心理上可能會擔心她會有其他什麼小動作,工作上又可能要作出新安排、調動和額外監督,甚至“監視”。

2. 也因此,基於小弟的魄力、身體狀況來說,因為心力所限,會傾向選擇早早了斷。So, if I were CK...

3a. 多年前有幸跟一位老闆作參謀另兼需親自落場管理。他亦採取勢力均衡的方針。小弟到現今都支持要平衡各方勢力,以為互相掣肘 (原來拼音係chezhou,查左好耐,今次一定要寫低記住)。但是,當中的老狐狸,就會用盡一切的手段,去詮釋這個“勢力均衡”。也不錯,我跟老狐狸一碰頭便會擦出火花。

3b. 也因為小弟對於勢力均衡的認知不多,所以小弟不敢貿然留下一個“可能的炸彈”。

當然,在考慮CK兄這個問題前,仍有不少假設,例如小弟會“認定”Mani 是一個教而不善的管理者,而她推卸責任的天性短期內絕對不會改善,甚至於留下她後,她的“死要面”作風可能會為公司其他人帶來後患。因此,F&F 也,以絕後患...

C.M. said...

Bravo:

(容小弟用中文解釋。)

閣下言重了。

以小弟一向的理解,其實沒有一種方案能比另一種“完美”。至於所謂“較佳”的方案,其實所需的“資源”與所面對的“風險”與管理者的風格亦有所關連和影響。

其實你所說的painstaking方法,亦是小弟所偏愛的。因為小弟欠缺所需的資源(和現場的資料)和側重某方面的判斷,所以採取F&F的方法。港燦和Karen妹的方法,其可取之處,在於穩定民心。只是,小弟風格較“賭博”罷了。

小弟今趟其實並非“好心”相助CK兄,只是有機會讓小弟弄清自己的思想和判斷,以助日後之工作罷了。(希望CK兄不要介意)。

bravo said...

Take care ar. C.M. Well, if I were CK, I would tend to F&F Mani. (Before this passage, I didn't understand the meaning of F&F strategy - it is clean and clear indeed!). To retain her is likely to induce further troubles, as she is no longer the original efficient Mani. With one year of development of her bad potentials, it is pretty hard for her to revert to a productive staff (in a short time), unless you have time to put her directly under your guidance. By blending, originally I meant to "pull her down" (Kong Chan) immediately by using your strategy (C.M.), then investigate a bit more to see if it's really necessary to fire her (Karen). However, I haven't thoroughly thought about the HR difficulties(compensation, etc.) if we don't grasp this opportunity to fire her. That is why I think your final explanation is the perfect one - giving a legitimate reason to fire her right away, then no blending is necessary. But after I read CK's recent blogs, I knew the politic of her subordinates; then I believe that only CK himself can know the whole picture and make the right decision. Cheers, Bravo

C.M. said...

Karen:

其實你的數個問題,小弟都想了解,這些了解對於此事如何解決會很有幫助。可惜,此地並不能像如現場一樣,獲得當事人觀察和領會的機會。不過,小弟很欣賞你會盡量了解每一個細節的想法。值得小弟借鏡。

(倘若 Blog是一個大眾公園,既然這個公園是 blogspot免費提供給我,我希望我的公園不只是“論”的地方,也是交誼相聚互吐心聲苦水的公園)

C.M. said...

鶴兄、AK兄:

〉〉群眾力量可以趕走上司

Errr... 查實請容小弟狡辯...

查實個人唔會好理會CK兄對於呢方面既考慮。

之所以唔理會,除了因為採取剛才以上所指的判斷外,還因為小弟相信“群眾力量可以趕走上司”這一概念本身,乃天經地義,也是無法避免的。

每個下屬都用眼睛看上司的那台戲,沒有下屬都會每天為這個上司投票。支持的話,會加倍努力工作,不支持的話,或許是自己走,又更多情況是,向同事訴苦,把信息傳遞給其他同事。

老闆衡量旗下管理者的一種指標,就是衡量管理者的下屬是否正在“performing”。

也就是說,小弟另一個假設是“因為Mani的存在,所以整條team 都是 underperforming”,也因此導致以上的判斷(或許未算seriously underperforming)。

也就是說,老闆看的也是群眾的反應和判斷 〉〉 也解釋我所指的“群眾力量可以趕走上司”是天經地義的結論。

這個天經地義,也乃小弟之前述說“民主”時的思想基礎。

而且,在一個並非過分惡性的職場政治生態(自己都唔知呢幾個字講乜)中,一個/一堆普通的下屬,除非別無出路,(個人相信)都不會採取齊齊辭職的方法,來解決上司的管理問題。也就是說,這個情況,會是老闆的嚴重忽略。

而在一個頗為惡性的政治生態中,調職會被視為一種妥協,而妥協的結果,就是將會有人意識到妥協反映公司立場的灰色地帶,也更表示,有人會利用這些機會採用政治方法為自己謀利益。

(post住先,抖抖隔10分鐘再寫)

C.M. said...

鶴兄:

關於傳遞一個怎樣信息,其實也不容易。

但小弟個人並不擔心“群眾力量可以趕走上司”的影響力,因為這個影響力實際上是與管理一起存在,要做的,不是打壓這個信息,而是要加以利用。

而要在處理前後傳遞一個信息,內容雖然重要,但更重要是這個信息要與自己的管理風格一致。

因此以個人風格而言,我的信息會是:“對於不願學習的人我是不會手軟的”(等等)。

C.M. said...

AK兄:

其實,小弟都唔係話一定要即時開鋤既。

記起當年自己經歷類似有下屬像Mani的事件,因為事件正在醖釀中尚未爆發,小弟也沒有即時開鋤,只是採取勸退方式,甚至與老闆一齊farewell佢。目的,也是為著那人的顏面和事後的交接。

不過,若果當時唔洗考慮交接問題,以小弟性格,即時開鋤既機會,會幾大。

但以呢個case,小弟最考慮係當事人既“態度”。並從中分辨兩者那個“尊重”和“符合”公司利益。

〉〉佢唔適合一個Management既位置,並唔代表佢係其他位置,例如單獨運作既時候發揮唔到效果...而且,係唔同既時間,佢可能又會有唔同既表現...

呢個絕對認同,也絕對支持。只是在這個case,小弟會主觀假設Mani的態度不會改變,要從高跌低再即時起身,Mani 應該不是這種人。而且,小弟對於管理者要求更嚴格(你話?佢地收幾多錢人工?)又當然,即時開鋤與否,是另一回事。

〉〉只要兩邊都可以好落台,擺平件事之後自然可以有新既空間去處理呢個問題...一野開鋤,反而回轉既空間就較少...

非常同意。不過人多於選擇二三線決戰,呢個台,唔容易搭得穩。

不過,若果可以知多d CK兄個實際情況,也很有可能採取你的做法。

C.M. said...

棉花妹妹:

先恭喜你有喜!你個P仔就快生得,記得BB啱啱出世,要望多兩眼呀。

〉〉其實是否Mani本身是個有才能的人,但因某些原因招人妒忌,而引申到今天這個局面?

小弟認為絕有可能。你看到這個情況,真好。這個情況,作為管理者必須加以留意,並及早處理。

Bravo:

Yeah, let's wish CK good hunting!

C.M. said...

(Errata)
鶴兄,AK兄:

>>“沒有”下屬都會每天為這個上司投票

應該是:

>>“每個”下屬都會每天為這個上司投票

Marshmallow said...

CM兄—唉呀,很怕個bb生出來手腳不全,五官不夠好看,口齒不夠靈利...恐怕是很多身為父母的感受!

微豆 said...

Having read quickly CK's three original articles, I would submit that immediate F&F is an easy way out for the manager and is quite unfair for the employee, in this case Mani. I applause CK's honest self-evaluation of his/her own decision to promote Mani in the first place and of the need to prevent similar crisis in the future. Firing Mani will indeed give the message that any managers promoted by CK can be squeezed out by the staff if the latter choose to exercise that power. CK must decide on the corporate culture of the organization, and more importantly, on who will be in charge. If I were CK, I would have taken the following steps:

(1) Meet with Mani and assign her as Senior Advisor but without the supervisory responsibility (since the work relationship is irreversibly broken).
(2) Make a personal commitment to Mani to work out with her a fixed transition period (6 to 8 months) during which the company will protect her current salary and benefits. I definitely think immediate demotion or F&F means Mani is made to pay the full price of a joint venture that did not work out.
(3) Meet with the four staff to make sure there are no other hidden agenda or issues;
(4) Assign someone (other than the four staff) to assume interim acting responsibility;
(5) Look at both personnel and organizational changes to be implemented 4 to 6 months from now.

Obviously, the above is based on a Canadian work environment and only CK is in the best position to decide on his next steps.

on dog said...

CM兄: 來遲! Sorry!

見到CK個case有咁多高手出招, 小9只覺呢個Topic真的好切身, 好切肉, 人人皆言, 好玩好玩!

小9只抱住天秤兩邊:
左: 老細不可被群眾既壓力支配其做法;

右: 下面走哂, 檻住個廢既又有咩用?

但其實顧左顧右, 有點像CM兄之前所講既二三線, 亦像小9以前講的DA Mode。Make decision 係好難既, 諗太多野就反而影響了自己的主線。"老細不可被群眾既壓力支配其做法", 會否其實可變為"受諫之明君"? 下面走哂, 會否反而造就一個廢既進步之地?

一切, 冇發生, 永遠都係未知數。
希望能做到最好既決定, 就係決定前既挑戰。只有CK才知他該怎樣做最適合, 因為個結果, 係佢去受。

C.M. said...

Karen:

(補充少少)
>>1. ck一向對主管management的style奉行"放任主義", 一旦"干預", 其他主管點諗呢?

呢個問題值得深思,所以需要大致知道Mani係各主管心目中既形象。個人來說,因為Mani做事勤快,所以應該招到不少人顧忌。倘若“干預”,其他主管可能會支持。(不過,若果真的如此,小弟會考慮借機會訓斥呢班主管既心態)

>>個罪名不夠力

所以要“引導”到Mani自己給予自己一個罪名。

微豆:

How's it going? Have you been to Italy again lately? Envy you.

>>I applause CK's honest self-evaluation of his/her own decision to promote Mani in the first place and of the need to prevent similar crisis in the future.

My applause to him too! That's why I love him.

Your steps are great! And if I were you, I would like to add a comment to 4. ~ "and if possible, break up the four."

>>F&F is an easy way out for the manager and is quite unfair for the employee, in this case Mani.

Well, F&F sounds easy, but when human factors count in, many a manager would hesitate to F&F. Again, that's why here this place is called: "inhuman resources".

Sadly, corporate benefits shall usually comes before "fairness" and sometimes, at the expense of certain employees.

On兄:

你隻左、右手真係好難搞。不過,小弟係右撇子,所以寧願自斷左臂。(或者好似On兄咁講,將隻左手當右手咁用?)

今日睇埋CK兄講佢地班下屬爭正邪...唉,戥CK兄辛苦。(也代表可以 F&F 的時機已過...有冇計?)

C.M. said...

棉花妹妹:

你放心喇。P仔一定健康成長(但都記得睇多兩眼..)

Karen (Sze) said...

C.M.:

CK出o左結局篇啦!

不過, 個人覺得呢件事無一個人係winner; 只可以話, CK得到個教訓。

C.M. said...

當然知道啦!精彩!

唔。先唔好理會公司內部如何處置,咁你覺得係法例上,其實CK有否其他地方需要注意既呢?

不過,你話無人係Winner... 你既意思係...

Karen (Sze) said...

回覆CM:

CK在blog度無講得咁detail, 其實只要CK跟足勞工法例paid錢(都係呢句: 唔好paid多, 亦唔好paid少), 就得。

"無人係Winner", 即係:

1. CK突然無o左個人幫佢manage那班admin term(即係話那"四大叛徒")。

2. Mani無o左份可以權傾成個working team的工作(補充: 可能份糧和前途都唔錯添, 但無人知), 短期內未必咁快找到similar的工作。

3. "四大叛徒": 他們應該開始怕被CK"秋後算帳", 又或者對公司已經有異心了, 若果有甚麼風吹草動, 那四個人可能會"揭竿起義", 嚴重的會搞亂CK間公司, 這一層要留意。

4. 其他主管: 須知道CK對主管的management style奉行"放任主義", 這例一開, 他們可能會"自我約束"。

5. 公司整體: 員工士氣稍為有影響, 但只是短期性而已。

作為管理人, 汲取這個教訓之餘, 對待相關的事件, 可以有個啟示。

C.M. said...

Karen:

當然,補足比佢走,似乎就夠。不過係呢個情況,Mani可能於自行離職後,向咬CK 一口,說公司強逼要佢調職,佢唔肯,所以離職。Mani因為深深不忿,所以可能會以此論點,向CK公司提出申索,要求“遣散補償”。當然,係呢個時候佢唔會咁做,因為仲要等封reference letter嘛。

呢個就要準備一下。

至於 Winner,你說的很詳盡。小弟所以一問,只是因為小弟認為,Winner 與 Loser,其實很視乎你點睇。至少小弟認為,現階段最大的 Loser,只是 CK 的公司,而不是任何一個人,甚至不包括CK 或 Mani 兩個。