STH Newsletter

Occasional updates, plus bonus idiotic ramblings. (We've never sent more than one e-mail per month.)

Elevator Repair Men Can Be Stupid, Too

by Jason Roth

There are certain professions that come with a special allure, or more specifically, an unearned respect. These are the kind of professions that, when someone tells you they practice one, you instantly respond with "Really?", or "Interesting!", and are immediately curious to hear more about it. These are the professions that seem dangerous, require extraordinary coordination or athletic ability, or seem to involve some kind of specialized knowledge of technology or machinery upon which the rest of us depend. That fireman, architect, or professional shark breeder may be the world's most incompetent in their fields, but you'll give him a larger-than-life benefit of the doubt, anyway.

For me, one such profession is the elevator repair man. To some extent, it requires all three of the above criteria. That is, it requires them if you want to be a good elevator repair man. I have discovered recently, however, that elevator repair men can be stupid, too. I know this based on a single discussion I overheard at a bar. These guys sounded like a bunch of college frat boys, entirely focussed on their all-important Union Memberships. Since frat boys can actually be intelligent or even independent, in rare occasions, let me specify that these elevator repair men sounded like stupid, unthinking, conformist, frat boys. I realize that people can compartmentalize their intelligence, and perhaps these guys left their brains in the elevator shaft. But it was doubtful that they were men capable of sustained focus. It made me consider how many safety-critical devices and services are maintained by idiots. Why are they hired, and who's the other idiot that lets them keep their jobs?

I am reminded of my experience at the airport two nights ago, when a cursory glance at the security personnel provided sufficient evidence that the only reason my airplane wasn't blown up was that the terrorists must not have felt adequately challenged. There must be a rule in the Koran that says once something really spectacular is pulled off, He won't let you into heaven for a petty airplane bomb. (Feel free to spread this rumor to your buddies in the mosque bingo tournaments.)

I tend to blame the complexity of our society for this problem. Or, more specifically: our inability to manage this complexity. It's like the typical difference between a small company and a big one. At a small company, it's relatively easy to keep an eye on the people working for you while you're making sure your product gets produced and sold. Once your company starts expanding, though, you need to learn an entirely new skill: management of and in complex organizations. Maybe you were fortunate enough to take a class or two in your MBA program, but you still haven't had any practice in the real world. And not only do you need to learn this skill as the boss, every manager beneath you also needs to learn it. Inevitably, what happens is that goals are set at the top which have little to do with the reality of the day-to-day work, and those at the top are detached from the work, as well as from the hiring, training, and management, of those throughout their organization. If you add speed of expansion to this equation, which is essential when a product takes off or a particular management decision is extraordinarily successful, then you have a bunch of rather clueless peons rushing just to accomplish the basics of what you're shouting at them.

"Security, now!" someone yells, and now we have three times as many security personnel at airports, working in a completely chaotic environment in which people cut in line (I saw this yesterday), some people take their shoes off for inspection and some don't (a NY news station reported on this recently), and security personnel argue with one another over procedure right in front of the passengers (I also witnessed this).

I don't think the problem has to do with the fact that it's government running airport security. The US military seems to conduct itself well when politicians don't interfere too much, so it's at least possible. And perhaps the military and any well-run, large companies are exceptions, but managing bigness is a difficult skill that a lot of managers don't have, and don't receive training for. I think for the benefits of ease and economy, we as consumers accept the resulting sloppiness.

I concede that the situation is a little like my fondness for the buffet table. New York's got great Indian lunch buffets, at least one decent sushi buffet, and we might as well count dim sum, which is basically a buffet that gets wheeled right over to your lazy ass. As far as I'm concerned, food quality at buffets can go down a bit because variety and quantity (i.e., complexity) goes up. Of course, when restaurant buffets go bad, you usually can't tell, without a microscope, anyway. When elevators and airport security go bad, the effects are a little less subtle.

So, what is involved in managing complex organizations? What's necessary is to give those higher up in the organization a proxy for direct, perceptual-level management. Since they can't directly manage every single individual in the company, they need a method of ensuring that their strategy is being carried out by everyone below them.

Without doing a several month research project on organizational behavior, I'd guess that the solution involves adhering to the following principles:

1. No manager should manage more individuals than can be directly perceived; i.e., met with on a regular basis.

2. Every position in the management chain should have a handful (e.g., half a dozen) of essential functions that need to be accomplished, are specified objectively (i.e., in writing), and are agreed upon by both the manager and the manager's manager.

3. Every manager, who manages a manager, should be required to meet regularly with his direct report in order to discuss the following: (a) are the employees who report to you performing each of the essential functions that we have agreed upon?, and (b) how do you know that they are performing them? (i.e., what is your evidence for knowing it?)

4. If you manage a manager, than having this type of regular communication with your direct report is one of your essential functions, upon which you will be evaluated by your manager.

   The essentials are: bringing the relevant facts into one's direct, perceptual awareness, and objectivity of job function as well as of the management process. Consistently practicing these steps should result in an unbroken chain leading from the bottom to the top. It's amazing how laid-back and non-formalized the management process often is. It's non-objectivity of job functions and ever-multiplying ambiguity between levels of management that result in unmanageable complexity.