I am ready with the tools, Sir

Living in own house has its advantages in comparison to life in a rented house. There are many physical benefits in addition to emotional comforts. There is no problem of the searching scrutiny of the landlord, especially if he or she is living in another part of the building. Lady of the house can go on buying whatever she wants as there is no problem associated with packing and movement while changing houses. Rented house is not our property; taking proper care of the building or not can reflect on our values and culture. If this is ignored, there is no problem of maintenance. However, living in own house has its disadvantages too. Even small problems cause more mental tension. The biggest disadvantage is that the problem cannot be transferred to the landlord and denies the pleasure of reminding him repeatedly till it is redressed. On the other hand, if the lady of the house is reminding of the problem repeatedly, intensity of the pain can only increase! The quantity and quality of problems increase as the building ages and becomes old. The troubles are confounded as we would also have aged with the building.

We had one such trouble some years ago. Rodents had made home rather unauthorizedly in the sewerage lines of the house. They had neither obtained permission for settling there nor paying rent, but living and multiplying comfortably. There were disciplined enough not to trespass into the house and fortunately there was no problem inside the house. But the sewerage lines were blocked and water flow was disrupted. It is difficult to find workers to handle these types of issues. Finally one person was located. He came, dug up the entire length of the lines, removed the heaps of muds deposited by the bandicoots and cleared the way. My presence was required throughout the action and he needed support by providing buckets, mugs, pouring water and checking the flow, answering his questions etc. He took a lunch break in the middle of the work and went away for two hours. I could neither go out on other errands nor relax at home as it was not known when he would come back. After he was finally done with the job, water was flowing freely. He said that the lines are to be got covered by someone else as he does not do that type of jobs. The sewerage lines were now left open and could not be left that way for long for well-known reasons. Another person was found for covering the lines, after much efforts. He arrived at his convenience and needed money for cement and bricks before start of the work. Items were bought and work was started, but he said the quantity of cement was insufficient and needed more money for additional purchase. He finished the job, charged more than what was agreed and was about to leave. When asked to clean the surroundings, he said it could be got done by our domestic help on the next day.

The problem of blocked drains returned after one month. The person found for solving it started by advising me that the earlier worker had done a horrible job and hence the problem has returned. He was told to complete the entire work up to cleaning stage. He found co-workers and ran a fat bill. Other troubles in getting the work done were the same like unscheduled lunch and tea breaks, asking for help and observing water flows etc. At last the work was completed but the problem returned after one month. When I mentioned about the problem to friends and relatives, each of them said they had faced similar problems. There is lot of comfort in sharing such problems with friends and relatives. Some of their tales made me feel better because their ordeals were much worse. One friend even said that he had to get a part of the wall re-done because the water was flowing into the foundation after repairs, instead of the sewerage main lines outside the house. Ultimately I had to find the solution myself. I got the entire line replaced using strong pipes instead of brick and cement masonry work. Thankfully the problem has not returned. The bandicoots are probably still learning about penetrating those strong pipes.

*****

My host here in USA had some issues with his house and needed some help to address them. He told me that the worker would come at 11 AM and I was requested to get the jobs done as he would be away on some other work at that time. I reluctantly agreed and braced myself for the ordeal in the light of my earlier experiences. The items for fixing and repair included a small leak in the roof, clearing clogged drains and repairs to the glass doors. A car stopped in front of the house five minutes before 11 AM. The driver waited for five minutes and rang the bell at exactly 11 AM. He asked me to advise the jobs to be done and show the spots. Once it was done, he inspected the problem areas  and said that there were two more issues that required fixing which we were not aware. He showed the spots and suggested that it be got done now or else the problems may aggravate during snowfall. He wanted to know the opening loft position in the house to enable him to reach the ceiling to fix the leak. We said that there is no such loft inside the house. He insisted that the houses have such an arrangement as he knew layout and structure of such houses. He identified the loft, went in it and made a final inspection. He said he would be back on the next day with the required material, at the same time.

He arrived promptly at the appointed time. He wanted to start the work. Out of courtesy, I asked whether he needed any support from me. My host had shown me the tool room in his backyard and I thought some tools lying there could be handy. "I am ready with the tools, Sir", he said looking at his mini truck parked in front of the house. "I have all the items and chemicals required for the jobs as well", he said and proceeded with his work. There were no breaks in the middle of his working. He used a collapsible ladder that was mounted on the truck for climbing over the house. The 15 feet folded steel ladder was extended to about 80 feet for reaching the top of the house. At the end of his work, he collapsed it to its original size and mounted again on the truck, all by himself. I was looking expectantly that my help may be called for holding the ladder, but there was no such request. 

He had identified the tools required for the various components of the work and ready with them at the start of the work. The tool kit had a collection of all tools for every conceivable application available in it. Required material was also kept ready in a bag. What was more impressive was the approach to the work.  He had waste cloth ready with him in his kit for spreading on the ground before placing the small ladder and tools on the floor inside the house, to prevent scratches on the floor and smudges on the carpet. At the end of his work, he cleaned all parts, removed the old screws and nails, shingles that were removed while repairing the ceiling etc. and carried them into a dust bin in his truck. There was no need for any cleaning to be done by the maid on the next day. 

I was now concerned about the amount to be paid for the work done. He said he would send an invoice by mail. The mail duly arrived and my host took care of it. I was advised that the final bill was less than what my host had anticipated. The bill had breakup of items used, inspection charges and service charges. The whole episode was a pleasant one. It was an example of professionalism at its best.

*****

This is not to suggest that all experiences are either as good or as bad as above. There are good experiences as well as bad ones, everywhere. There is scope for planning and display of professionalism in all walks of life. That is what sets apart good workers from the mediocre ones. This also shows the importance of proper training as well as imparting and acquiring necessary skills in various walks of life.  

   

Competent, Incompetent and Super-Competent

Online dictionary defines "Competent" as having "suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience etc. for some purpose or properly qualified". It also mentions that these (skill, knowledge or experience etc.) are adequate, but not exceptional. Anyone who is not having these qualities to the desired level is "Incompetent".  By extension, anyone having these qualities in more than adequate levels or to an exceptional degree will naturally be "super-competent". In any organization, at any given time, the workforce available for its functions comprise of all these three groups; competent, incompetent and super-competent. Most of the work is carried on by the competent segment.  Of course, the incompetent also do contribute for carrying on the work and, more importantly, sharing the salary bill.

Occupational incompetencies are visible everywhere.  Despite giving clear instructions, the end result is often against what was desired.  Frustration sets in when such instances are seen.  Dr Laurence J Peter did pioneering work in the area of study of organizations and came out with his principle called "Peter's Principle".  Raymond Hull obtained the voluminous research papers from Dr peter and they together published the result of the studies in the form of a book titled "The Peter Principle".  The book which was first published in the year 1968, has sold several million copies and is popular both for its humorous view of hierarchies as well as serious research work on management and education.  All management personnel and HR practitioners would do well to read the book.  It would either improve their efficiency or relieve their boredom by enabling them to laugh at their own systems, or both.

Dr Peter through his study of many leading organizations in diverse fields such as education institutions, military, manufacturing industries and service outlets concludes that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence".  Thus, in many organizations, most of the positions are occupied by incompetent people.  They reached these levels because they were found to be competent at the previous level.  They are now unable to move to the next level because they are found incompetent here.  There is no system of demoting them to the previous level where they can be competent; they cannot be promoted because they are now incompetent!

Dr Peter explains this catch-22 situation with many examples.  A competent teacher is approved for promotion as assistant principal.  As a teacher he was responsible for teaching students.  As an assistant principal he has to deal with adults, a group of teachers.  The skills required at this level are different than those required at the previous level.  If he is found competent at that level, he will be promoted as the Principal.  As a principal he has to deal with outsiders like school board members, parental groups and community leaders. If he fails at this level, he is incompetent as a principal and will not be considered for promotion as a superintendent, the next higher level.  He continues to work as an incompetent principal because he cannot go back as a competent teacher or assistant principal.

One may feel that there are many exceptions to this rule.  We know of many incompetent persons being promoted to the next level.  This may be for various reasons; compulsion to fill the next post from among the available pool or the danger of one not promoted quitting the organization and joining the competitor.  If the promotion was due to constraints of compulsion of selecting from the available pool, it is only a pseudo-promotion. If it is the fear of the rejected joining the competitors and the damage he can do because he knows sufficient inside information, then it is not a true promotion, but only kicking upstairs!  In either of these situations, the person is only moving from a level of incompetence to a higher level of incompetence.  There could be one more reason for such promotion of the incompetent employees.  It may be because the promoting authority has himself reached his level of incompetence and cannot decide on the competency of his subordinates!  Such promotions serve another important purpose; it keeps employee morale high.  "If X himself can be promoted, I should definitely stand a chance", feel the others and thus get motivated. 

Some of the examples given by Dr Peter are indeed revealing.  A Chairman of a company was in a dilemma while choosing his CEO when the present incumbent retired.  Two candidates were in the radar and the junior of the two was the right one to fill the position. The  Chairman was afraid that the bypassed senior may quit and join the competitor.  He was with the company long enough and his joining the competitor would certainly damage the company due his knowledge of all the trade secrets. The CEO overcame this problem by promoting both of them.  The senior was personally called and told that his knowledge and long service was invaluable to the company and it deserved to be recorded for posterity.  He was given a separate office, suitable staff and sufficient funds and advised to write the history of the company from its very beginning.  He was indeed very happy and went on with his mission.  The junior actually ran the company now.  At the end of two years, the senior came up with beautiful volumes of the history of the company. The books were released on his retirement day and they are kept in the company's main office.  Of course, nobody read them, but the CEOs purpose was served.

Another executive was confronted with a similar situation.  He promoted both the competitors.  The senior incompetent  person was made "Chief Co-ordinator" and all departments were advised to send a copy of their letters and reports to the chief co-ordinator.  The junior ran the show while the senior believed that he was doing lot of important work. He was submerged in the flood of papers and information and was very busy to create any trouble. Others did not worry about him except that one copy of all letters and reports were continued to be sent to him.

Dr Samuel Peter brings out many other wonderful management terms like Pull and Push, creative incompetence and Peter's Inversion.  Pull and Push are well-known practices to earn promotions.  Perter's Inverts are those who invert means and ends relationship. "Never stand when you can sit; never walk when you can ride; never push when you can pull", he suggests. 

Dr Peter concludes his study with a delightful warning:  Organizations expect their employees to be competent, but routinely tolerate the incompetent.  It is only the super-competent that they do not like.  It is because the super-competent are a rare breed and therefore they are a threat to hierarchy.  The golden rule is that "hierarchy should be preserved at all costs".
          
Peter's principle should be read by all competent and incompetent people.  It comforts the incompetent by assuring them that they are not alone, but in fact belong to the majority.  It encourages the competent that they are the ones who are running the show.  Since all of us belong to one of these two categories, it is relevant to all of us.  In case one does not know to which category he belongs, it would help him to make up his mind about his own classification.