A Day at Works

F.W. Taylor’s scientific management (1911) is a rigorous analysis of input, output & cost aim to improve productivity by harmonize management & labor. He concerned about company’s health showed by productivity, and harmony showed by distribution of income. Although his aim is workers’ goodness, but his mechanical approach of company and worker made him see there is only ‘one best method’. It makes him enemy of the workers.

Taylor’s division of work is principal of scientific management, which leads to ergonomics, specialization and efficiency, but also leads to monotonous work & workers’ dissatisfaction since workers unable to see the end product & directly associated himself to the creation. Taylor’s one best method is a quest for Frank & Lilian Gilbert’ time & motion study. They introduce Work Cycle, Work Simplification & Systematization, and Process Flow Chart.

Elton Mayo through Hawthorne investigation found that productivity is a social phenomenon, not only technical / methodology problem. Fellowship of management & worker, cooperation & teamwork, self respect, sense of belonging, task identification & recognition are important to workers’ productivity. Further, Hawthorne study leads to the emergence of Participative Management & Leadership promoted by Robert Owen (called as 1st Enlighted Manager) & Mary Follet.

She found that Laissez-faire & Directive Management bring less productivity compared to Participative Management. Participative approach which essentially democratic, success simply because it provide what is needed in productive social environment and worker’s personality.

Technology by itself does not make anybody more productive. The idea is that technology sometime adds complexity to work environment, and every ounce of complexity dropping productivity. Secondly technology as a tool could not solve problem in people, structure and strategy.

These simple ideas, more often fail to understand by management. For instance installing a new prospecting software replacing the old manual report of daily prospecting activities at Sales Dept. The software will require special time of Salesman to input into the system, more time for Supervisor to monitor individual Salesman’s performance. Other example is how management thinks installing new technology can solve bureaucratic corporate culture; the result is from an hour of time required to write a simple letter to more than a day to do the same thing.

The funny but insightful story is how USA and Russia solve a problem of writing a note in the International Space Station: because there is no gravity thus conventional pen fails to work. Russia provide simple solution, a pencil instead of a pen developed by USA which required more money and time in development.

In Sales Dept, installation of new technology usually to ‘help’ following process: sales lead generation, sales contact, sales tracking, sales record, and sales retention. All of these process can be improved by technology, as long as giving Salesman flexibility in place and time –as well as the nature of the work, and giving Salesman more but practical support. In these 2 requirements, Japanese is more sophisticated by using work tools which is observable and always available, such as simple board using colors, and plate.

[1] Suspect flattery. Sincere compliments from a coworker or a boss are nice, but outrageous flattery is often an attempt to draw you into a psychopath’s snare. If you feel your ego is being massaged, you may be dealing with a psychopath. Be careful.

[2] Take labels and titles with a grain of salt. Just because someone is older, has a higher position or more degrees, or is wealthier than you are does not mean his or her moral judgment is better than yours.

[3] Always question authority when it conflicts with your own sense of right and wrong. This may be hard to do, but it is crucial to your own career and well-being.

[4] Never agree to help a psychopath conceal his or her suspicious activities at work.

[5] If you are afraid of your boss, never confuse this feeling with respect.

[6] Realistically assess the damage to your life. If it’s too great, you may have to leave.

Remember that living well is the best revenge.
source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss-fasttake.html

Micromanagement is a management style where manager closely observes or controls every steps of the work of employees. This style arise from manager himself who 1) concerns for details, 2) want to increase performance pressure, 3) wants to spread insecurity to eliminate unwanted employees, 4) seen employees as incompetence or can not be trusted, or 5) to securing his position because the low ratio of boss and workers.

In modern organization tendency to concentrate power in the hand of single person is unproductive, thus excessive control over employees as happened in micromanagement is left aside. In contrary, modern management delegates power to make decision to the frontline who face customer and problem to increase customer and employee satisfaction, as long as the firm recruit the employees with the right atitude and capability (known as adult employee in HR literature).

In real world, control is still important because not all employees are adult (although management all employees as adult). In this condition, manager need to give detail instruction (telling style), and giving pressure for higher performance. By these 2 motives manager MUST hands-on to the work of employees. Management style arise from these motives is known as hands-on management. Contrary to micromanagement, hands-on management is arise because of job context, while micromanagement as stated earlier more often arise from manager himself who have personal trait to concern for detail, personal agenda (pressure for higher performance, eliminate employees or to securing his position), or negative attitude toward employees (seen employees as incompetence or can not be trusted)

Although micromanagement and hands-on management are based on control paradigm, but in hands-on management, control is needed to serve interest of the firm, management and employees – not merely to serve the concern of the boss. That’s why micromanagement has negative conotation, and damage trust, commitment and loyalty which at the end will damage human productivity.

Bisnis adalah suatu peperangan, dan dalam peperangan selalu dibutuhkan prajurit yang berdedikasi (mau) dan memiliki kemampuan. Masalahnya bagaimana bila strategi berperang/ berkompetisi berubah, persaingan berubah, atau alasan lainnya sehingga jenis karyawan yang sudah direkrut tidak sesuai lagi dengan kebutuhan?

Bagaimana dalam dunia bisnis?
Alternatif pertama yang paling kasar adalah menempatkan karyawan dalam posisi atau pekerjaan dimana spec-nya tidak cocok dengan kualifikasi karyawan sehingga karyawan berkinerja tidak sesuai harapan dan dapat dikeluarkan dengan status tidak cakap bekerja. Di Indonesia praktek ini hanya dimungkinkan bagi karyawan di bawah 40th, selebihnya pemerintah mencegatnya dalam bentuk Undang Undang Ketenagakerjaan meskipun mutasi bebas masih dapat dijalankan seenaknya oleh perusahaan, artinya perusahaan bebas memutasikan karyawan tanpa assement, pelatihan ulang dan masa percobaan serta jaminan ketersediaan posisi semula bila karyawan yang dimutasikan ternyata tidak sesuai dengan job spec yang dibutuhkan. Keputusan ini sering dilakukan oleh perusahaan perseorangan, perusahaan tertutup/ keluarga. Perusahaan publik yang dewasa ini mengarah ke sana adalah BCA sebab terjadinya agency problem. Manager menyelamatkan jabatan dan gajinya yang besar dengan mengurangi karyawan dan membebankan target tidak masuk akal. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan menempatkan prajurit infanteri darat dalam posisi awak kapal.
Alternatif kedua, adalah melaksanakan PHK dengan ucapan terimakasih (dalam bentuk golden shakehand) begitu spec karyawan tidak sesuai dengan job spec yang baru. Keputusan ini pernah diambil oleh Astra Graphia, dimana seorang karyawan dinilai tidak cocok dan tidak dibutuhkan sehingga menerima PHK beserta pesangonnya, namun kemudian ternyata dapat masuk kembali ke lingkungan Astra di perusahaan atau departemen lainnya. Jelas hal ini suatu kebodohan karena lemahnya koordinasi dan ketertutupan informasi kebutuhan tenaga kerja dalam satu lingkungan kerja (meskipun beda PT). PHK sudah diatur pemerintah, namun ucapan terimakasih biasanya dalam bargaining perusahaan sebab aturan pemerintah tidak mempertimbangkan sulitnya mencari pekerjaan kembali. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan memensiunkan prajurit dengan ucapan terimakasih (biasanya berupa rumah dan tanah dalam budaya Jepang dan Eropa) dan mengembalikan statusnya sebagai civilian.
Alternatif ketiga, adalah redeployment. Redeployment dilakukan dengan mapping seluruh kebutuhan perusahaan, mulai dari job analysis sampai menghasilkan job specification dan job description. Kemudian perusahaan menginformasikan semua posisi dan persyaratannya, serta mapping karyawan mana saja yang dipertahankan, alias memiliki job spec-nya cocok dengan kualifikasi karyawan. Sisa karyawan lainnya dapat re-apply pekerjaan yang belum terisi. Lebih manusiawi dan mudah bukan? Namun kenyataannya sulit dilakukan sebab: ketertutupan informasi, pride atasan untuk tidak mau dianggap gagal, atau kurangnya kemampuan HR yang memang harus diakui di Indonesia lebih sebagai policy maker dan polisi kebijakan ata sikapnya yang tidak menempatkan diri sebagai employee champion (dalam istilah Dave Ulrich). Di Indonesia keputusan ini pernah diambil Danamon, yang menurut berbagai survey kualitas HR-nya belumlah yang terbaik. (NB: penulis tidak bekerja di Danamon). Redeployment lucunya tidak disarankan secara eksplisit oleh pemerintah, bukti lain lagi bahwa kebijakan publik terpisah-pisah dari satu kementerian dengan kementerian lainnya. Dalam dunia militer ini sama dengan perombakan yang digabungkan dengan tour of duty.

Mengapa beberapa perusahaan mengambil keputusan yang tidak humanis?
Perusahaan adalah konsep abstrak, nyatanya yang mengambil keputusan seringkali adalah manajer perusahaan yang sama-sama orang gajian dan yang sama-sama ketakutan dan memiliki egonya sendiri. So kembali lagi kepada value dan etika leader…
Etis adalah ketika keputusan atau perbuatan hanya memperhatikan diri sendiri, inilah esensi melayani orang lain (Autocratic VS Servant Leadership).

Recently many companies try to improve employee motivation and attitudes by sending them attending seminars & training. Company thinks that all of this initiates are enough, or if things still go wrong company can say that the problem rest in the hand of employees.

All of these efforts are not enough. Back from the seminar, employees face management decision and attitudes that are contradicting and de-motivate them. In seminar they are told to be positive and never give up while management install excessive control and enforce increasing target, indicating their distrust to employees. Management promotes merit pay, while at the same time giving excuse to top managers, indicating caste in organization. Management coach employees and act like a coach, but at the end of year they judge employees performance by attributes not performance.

Believe me, there is no employees genuinely not motivated. Notice that employees, who in working hour look very unmotivated, can be very committed to extra office activities such as sport or arranging events. Motivation exist, but because of negativity the motivation is not directed to do the job extraordinaly.

This might indicates jobs, or people surrounds the office (including the Boss) possibly destroy their sense of responsibility and achievement. So while stepping further to any motivational intervention, first of all, look whether management stop de-motivate employees?

Ancient wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in organizations we often try many other strategies, including the following:

1. Changing riders
2. Buying a stronger whip
3. Falling back on: “This is the way we’ve always ridden”
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse
5. Arranging a visit to other sites to see how they ride dead horses
6. Increasing the standards for riding dead horses
7. Appointing a group to revive the dead horse
8. Creating a training session to improve riding skills
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in today’s environment
10. Changing the requirements so that the horse no longer meets the standard of dead
11. Hiring an external consultant to show how a dead horse can be ridden
12. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed
13. Increasing funding to improve the horse’s performance
14. Declaring that no horse is too dead to beat
15. Doing a study to see if outsourcing will reduce the cost of riding a dead horse
16. Buying a computer program to enhance dead horse performance
17. Declaring a dead horse less costly than a live one
18. Forming a workgroup to find uses for dead horses
19. Changing performance requirements for the horse

And … if all else fails …
Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position. Or, in a large corporation, make it a Vice President.

Baru-baru ini seorang teman menceritakan bagaimana juniornya di perusahaan lama telah mengikuti jejaknya pindah ke perusahaan tempatnya sekarang bekerja. Karena perusahaan sangat membutuhkan karyawan baru, junior teman saya tadi disepakati (melalui negosiasi gaji tentunya) memperoleh gaji yang lebih tinggi dibanding senor teman saya tadi. Lagi-lagi perusahaan demi alasan kebutuhan dan survival menafikan keadilan.

Adil adalah masalah pelik negeri ini, keadilan banyak dipahami sebagai memperoleh sama rata dan sama rasa padahal keadilan adalah 1) internal equality: memperoleh sesuai apa yang dikorbankan, 2) external equality: memperoleh setara dengan orang lain dengan pengorbanan yang sama.

Kasus teman saya tadi jelas adalah kasus external equality. Bagaimana bisa dengan skill dan knowledge yang lebih tinggi, plus pengalaman lebih lama memperoleh gaji yang lebih rendah dari new entrants? Jujur saja kasus ini lazim di Indonesia. Fresh graduate di perusahaan besar Nasional yang direkrut th 2006 memperoleh gaji minimal Rp. 3 juta, sedangkan yang direkrut dengan spec yang sama di th 1996 Rp. 1,5 juta. Jadi secara kasar hanya untuk mempertahankan equality, rekrutan th 1996 harus tumbuh gajinya Rp. 150.000 atau 10% per tahun (3 juta – 1,5 juta dibagi 10 th). Masalahnya kenaikan tahunan belum tentu 10% net.
So bagaimana perusahaan harus bertindak? Jelas perusahaan harus memberikan kenaikan penyesuaian netto yang sesuai, misalnya 10% dalam contoh. Secara fundamental perusahaan harus bertumbuh sesuai dengan pertumbuhan job market, dan inilah yang susah! Tanpa kesetaraan pertumbuhan ini HR akan kesulitan memperoleh calon karyawan dengan spec yang minimal sama, makin sulit menempatkan karyawan tanpa memperpanjang rata-rata employmet time dalam setiap jabatan, dan makin sulit mempertanggungjawabkan membesarnya staff atau munculnya departemen/seksi/jabatan yang non-fundamental.

Lebih gawat lagi masalah internal equality di negeri ini. Saya ingat tahun 1996 dengan gaji yang menurut saya biasa saja, setiap hari saya bisa sarapan lengkap di Dunkin Donat namun tahun 1999 setelah krisis saya sungguh tidak rela sarapan di sana setiap hari meskipun posisi dan gaji saya sudah naik jauh. Yah… dengan pengorbanan yang sama ternyata gaji kita telah dikoreksi demikian jauh sebab situasi makro ekonomi sungguh buruk. Bagaimana dengan kasus mikro atau sehari-hari? Kita cenderung melihat segala sesuatunya hanya dari hasilnya, sehingga hanya mengagumi yang paling cemerlang tanpa ingat bagaimana pengorbananya. Kita lupa bahwa yang patut dikagumi adalah mahasiswa yang lulus dengan beasiswa dengan GPA 3,0 dibandingkan seorang mahasiswa yang lahir deri keluarga kaya degan GPA 3,5 yang tidak pernah naik bis kota, tidak pernah belajar dibawah lampu bolam 5 watt, dan tidak pernah makan Kentucky Fried Chicken. Karyawan juga demikian. Penilaian karya berdasarkan output semata, tidak membandingkannya dengan potensinya. Meski jelas bagian rekrutmen mengukur potensi setiap karyawan…..

Selain masalah pertumbuhan, fenomena teman saya tadi jelas masalah keberanian dan etika, masalah benar-salah. Manajemen yang pengecut dan lebih suka memberangus hati nurani akan membiarkan ini terjadi tanpa sedikitpun komunikasi. Tindakan yang tepat harus diterapkan, seperti evaluasi gaji, dan penyesuaian.

According to Freud, and later by Neuro Linguistic Programming we can classify peoples to Visual, Auditory or Kinestetic. These 3 types differ in their styles of learning – thus as businessman it is crucial to understand how actually we can influence them using media, and personal selling.

Visual people learn because they see. They will have a tendency to get attention, because they are well dressed in bright colors; or their facial expressions and gestures will attract you, and get you to look at them. They have a tendency to stand face to face with direct eye contact. They also tend to be humorous or funny and even risk making fun of others. In contrast they are not comfortable talking about highly emotional subjects or in conversations which are too serious. To speak and act quickly and be frequently impatient with others is a strong sign for being visual, even if all visuals are not like that. They can be more or less shy or out going depending on the person. As well you will notice that they access visual representations by looking up very often when they are talking.

Auditory, different from Visual people, learn from their ears. They hear well and passionately (wants to listen and to be listned), and also speak well. They may be carefully dressed or perhaps not, wise or “caustic” depending on the desired communication. These persons are an easy conversationalist in formal situations: family gatherings or professional environments, revealing their sense of humor in the context of a story rather than by making faces ar acting out a story. They easily and readily organizes group activities. You will notice that they often access to auditory mental representations by looking side to side when speaking or thinking about things.

Kinesthetic peoples are more personal and more intimate, showed by their tendency to physical contact, “feeling” word, or slower/ lower pace of gesture or voice. Their style of dressing are not dictated by fashion or good taste but are made sensual either by the use of pleasant and comfortable materials or by sexy look. They often speak less than others and communicate by innuendo which can lead to great “complicity” with certain people or great misunderstanding with ohers.

So certain media fits well to certain type of people…. as well as sales approach….

Mestakung, penjabaran konsep fisika Critical Phenomenon dari Prof. Yohanes Surya PhD, dewasa ini (Desember 2006) adalah konsep yang mulai banyak dibicarakan orang. Mestakung adalah proses pengaturan dari alam yang bekerja melepaskan sistem dari kondisi kritis. Mestakung selanjutnya dapat dipancing dengan KriLangKun (kritis, langkah dan tekun).

Kritis berarti menempatkan diri dalam kondisi kritis. Kondisi kritis akan menyebabkan semesta bereaksi mengatur diri mewujudkan keinginan kita. Langkah adalah aksi yang dilakukan untuk bergerak menuju sasaran. Tekun berarti melupakan hambatan di belakang dan menetapkan fokus mencapai tujuan.

Konsep ini dalam ilmu social mirip dengan prinsip motivasi conditioning, yaitu menempatkan obyek dalam situasi tertentu sehingga bertindak / mencapai hasil yang dikehendaki. Konsep ini dan juga konsep motivasi dalam ilmu sosial berakar pada asumsi bahwa manusia dan alam memiliki fleksibilitas dan kapasitas tidak terbatas sehingga dapat menyesuaikan diri.

Problemnya asumsi ini kadang “keterusan”, misalkan kita tempatkan seseorang dengan kemampuan biasa-biasa dalam posisi kritis untuk mencapai prestasi extraordinary. Bisa jadi obyek akan meraih prestasi istimewa, namun dengan mengorbankan prinsip etika, menjadi sosok yang over competitive, dan sebagainya. Artinya suatu sistem bias dipacu namun tanpa pemahaman potensi alias kapasitasnya maka Mestakung hanya akan menghasilkan sistem yang tidak menyeluruh/ sempurna (wholeness). Fenomena ini terjadi umum di masyarakat Tionghoa jaman ORBA yang karena berbagai batas pemerintah, dan posisi legal-politikalnya yang kritis mencapai kinerja ekonomi luar biasa namun mengorbankan aspek kemasyarakatan lainnya. Menjadi asosial, kurang pergaulan, terlalu perhitungan, dll.

Jadi ingat semua diciptakan memiliki batasan, (kebalikan asumsi modern motivator-motivator management yang terpengaruh new age), memiliki porsi, memiliki tujuan penciptaannya sendiri…. Di luar itu Mestakung hanyalah seperti rejim tangan besi yang memaksa sistem bekerja menghasilkan output yang sangat baik, namun dengan mengorbankan pelaku-pelakunya yang menderita dalam prosesnya. Oh ya ingat juga Jepang…. sistem memaksa lulusan SMA belajar ekstra keras, sehingga banyak yang bunuh diri….