He was passion
personified and loved what he did; on most days he would be the first to arrive
and the last to leave. For him there were seven days in a week which just
rolled along, rarely he took even the weekends off. Meal times whether
breakfast, lunch or supper happened on the move whenever a few minutes
presented themselves in between fixing issues or changing code. He was in
perpetual motion and yet tireless like an ideal state machine.
Users loved him as
he always smiled and never said no to any request or demand. Technically he was
good and working 16 hour days he almost always delivered to promise. Not that
the rest of the team complained, in fact they passed on some of their work to
him which he took on with no qualms. The CIOs attempts to slow him down did not
change his working style until one fine day nature took its toll and he was
down with illness and out of commission for a month.
A decade and more
later, in another company a similar story played itself again. I don’t remember
if it was the first job for the person, she had already spent a decade in the
company and had been part of the IT evolution from the first set of large
investments. Having spent so much time, she knew every aspect of the business
and the system; when the principal vendor had a problem which they needed to
validate, they would call her and she always had an answer. If there was one,
she was the subject matter expert.
The company was
growing in leaps and bounds which lead to increase in workloads. Unable to
retain a team of professionals due to her nature of micro-managing every aspect
of the work, the pipeline started getting clogged leading to delays in the
regular stuff; the urgent always got priority and was addressed. The bottle-necking required drastic steps and the CIO moved her laterally to the
business and distributed the work to the team. Very quickly there was no
pending work and everyone was happy.
Every company has
this scenario playing out in some way or the other. There is always a set of
resources that are deemed critical to the functioning of the company that they
end up getting overloaded. Some get into such situations by default because
they are good at what they do and some create such situations because they love
being the center of attention and attraction. In either case their false sense
of importance leads to the person and the company suffering as observed in the
above anecdotes.
A long time back
one of my Managers told me “In every company there is one individual who is
indispensable, s/he should be fired”. Curious and naive I asked “Why?”; to
begin with apply the Red Bus theory, if a bus runs over the individual, what
happens to the company ? And how to prevent and minimize any minor or major
disruption ? The second reason is to address the growth aspirations of the
person. If s/he is critical to a position, task, process or function, then s/he
cannot get elevated as s/he is critical.
So whenever such
a situation presented itself, I have used a step by step approach to de-risking
the individual as well as the enterprise.
- Discuss the situation with the individual to create awareness; ensure that s/he understands the implications to self and the company
- Explore growth aspirations and personal goals and how they may be restricted by the current reality. If this has been the situation for long, cite peer examples of growth
- Work with him/her to find a workable solution which could be lateral or upward move, changing role or addition of resources
- If none work, outplace the person
You also have the
option to let the situation be and do nothing; not that anything has happened
in the last so many years, so why should it happen now ? That is a choice to
make. Have you faced such a predicament either yourself personally or within
your team ? What did you do ? I would love to learn from your experience.
In both cases above it is a management failure. No one is indispensable in a company. A company does not need super heros but need to sustain work balance while meeting business expectations. It is up to a company's leadership on how to balance so that there is cross-pollination within the team. Just because someone needs or wants to know everything and being a center for everything does not make that person invaluable or creates an ivory tower for that person.
ReplyDeleteManagers always want to depend on fewer folks than a team of folks because it is easy to get information and depend on fewer folks than a bunch of team members as connecting the dots for managers becomes more complex
My two bit..
ReplyDeleteSo true.. I have seen that happen in 2 of the firms that I have worked in.
Indian companies do NOT invest in people and indirectly end up creating such SILO's . Also the individual employee himself/herself should realize this problem. The annual feedback form should have this as a parameter to judge. HR too has good role to play (understanding operational risk or the lack of it.. ).