Working Problems

The first four sections built the equipment: the foundations that keep the Job Relations line strong, the four-step method for handling a problem, and the worksheet that puts that method down on paper. This section is about putting it all to work on real problems. It covers how problems come up in the first place, why it pays to catch them while they are small, and how the method looks when it is done badly and when it is done well. Two real cases carry the lesson: one supervisor who skipped Weigh and Decide, and one who used all four steps to head a problem off before it grew.

By the end of this section, you should understand:

• the four ways a problem comes up — you notice a change, you can see one coming, it comes to you, or you run into it,
• why it pays to handle the small blaze with a cup of water rather than wait for the fire department,
• why a supervisor practices on small problems first, since most big problems grew out of small ones handled poorly,
• the difference between an individual problem and a group situation,
• and — through two worked cases — what skipping a step costs, and what using all four steps buys.

1How problems come up

A problem rarely announces itself the same way twice. But if you watch how problems actually reach a supervisor, they come up in four recognizable ways. Knowing them helps, because the earlier in its life you catch a problem, the easier it is to handle.

There are four ways a problem comes up:

1. You notice a change. If you are on the floor, you are often tipped off early by a change in someone's work or attitude. A person who is suddenly short with the people around them, a steady worker whose output slips — that is a problem taking shape. Effective supervisors get in on these early.
2. You can see one coming. Sometimes you can size a problem up before it happens. Management announces a change in policy, hours, or layout; a new person or group is coming into the area. You can do the preventive work up front so there is less to clean up later.
3. It comes to you. Some problems walk in on their own. A person asks for a raise or a transfer, or brings you a question or a complaint. The problem arrives already stated.
4. You run into it. Others you simply run into. You tell someone to do something and they will not do it; someone is late again. You did not go looking for the problem — it was in your path.

1

You notice a change

A shift in someone's work or attitude tips you off early — get in on it before it grows.

2

You see one coming

An announced change lets you do the preventive work up front, before trouble lands.

3

It comes to you

A request for a raise or transfer, a question, a complaint — the problem arrives stated.

4

You run into it

Someone won't do what you asked, or is late again — the problem was simply in your path.

2Handle the small blaze first

There is a strong temptation to save the method for the big, involved problems and to wave off the small ones. That gets it exactly backwards.

Most of a supervisor's larger problems grew out of small ones that were handled poorly. A little blaze can be put out with a cup of water. Let it develop into a big blaze and you have to call out the fire department from neighboring towns. The supervisor does much of their preventive work simply by handling problems while they are new and small, rather than waiting until they are older and more complicated.

The trouble is that small problems feel insignificant. Because they seem so minor, a supervisor is tempted to skip getting the facts, to jump to a conclusion, to deal with it on the fly — exactly the habits that turn a small problem into a large one. You give a job to someone and they do not do it; a person will not show up on time. Those small incidents are problems, and they are where bad habits form.

So a supervisor practices on small problems on purpose. Not because the small ones matter most, but because that is how the method becomes a habit. Apply the whole method — all four steps — to a short, simple problem, and you build the instinct to think a problem through before acting. Form that habit on small problems and it is there, ready, when a big one lands. The method does not get longer on a hard problem; the practice you put in on easy ones is what makes the hard ones shorter.

3Individual problems and group situations

A problem may sit with one person or it may run through a whole group, and part of weighing a problem is being honest about which it is.

An individual problem centers on one person — Joe and his Monday absences, the old-timer and his refusal to buy tools. The facts are largely about that person, and the action mostly reaches that person, though it is never only about them: the rest of the group is always watching how you handle it.

A group situation affects many people at once — a change in hours, a new pay arrangement, a disruptive change coming to the department. Here the facts and the action run across the whole group, and a single mishandled announcement can sour relations with many people at the same time. Group situations are very often the kind you can see coming, which is exactly why they reward preventive work.

The four-step method handles both. What shifts is the scope of the facts you gather and the reach of the action you take — and, with a group situation, how much you can do in advance. The two cases that follow show the contrast: an individual problem handled badly, and a group situation handled well.

4A Weigh-and-Decide failure: the shipyard old-timer

This case turns on the second step. The supervisor had the warning signs and even had most of the facts — and still reached the wrong decision, because he weighed only a few of the facts he had.

The situation. In a shipyard electrical shop, the supervisor told an employee to buy some tools the company required workers to own. The man said he could not — he was saving his money — and when the supervisor offered to have the cost taken from his paycheck, the man flatly refused. He said he did not like the shop anyway and wanted to go back to his old job outside. The supervisor was sore about the refusal.

Behind that refusal was a longer story. The man was an old-timer with the company who had always worked outside. He had hurt his foot and been moved to the inside shop while it healed — placed there so he could keep earning his full rate instead of drawing partial pay under workmen's compensation. His foot had been healed for some time, and he had asked when he could go back outside. But the shop was busy, so the supervisor wanted to keep him. The man had grown more and more uncooperative since coming inside, and now refused certain work outright. The whole department was watching to see how it would end. The supervisor decided it was time to act.

The objective. Get the job done without upsetting the department.

The facts the supervisor acted on. He weighed a handful: the man was uncooperative, he had refused to buy the tools, he had refused certain work, and the department was watching. On those few facts, he fired the old-timer.

The facts he had but did not weigh — and the ones he never gathered. The man had about twenty years of good service outside. He liked outdoor work and disliked the shop. He had never been told why he was put inside — that it was arranged so he could keep his full pay. He was under the impression his former supervisor had promised he could return outside once he healed. And the outside supervisor, who could have spoken to twenty years of good service, was never consulted.

What happened. The man took his case to the union. The union gathered the very facts the supervisor could have gathered himself. Management and the union agreed the old-timer should be reinstated in the yard, in his old job, with full back pay. The supervisor lost standing with the man, with the department that had been watching, and with his own management. He did not check results, because he believed firing the man had settled the matter. It had not.

5Take Action and Check Results done well: preparing for a change

The second case is the mirror image of the first. Here a general foreman faced a disruptive change he could see coming, and used all four steps — leaning hard on Take Action and Check Results — to head off the trouble before it grew.

A note on the case: in the original 1940s material this concerned introducing the first woman supervisor into a plant that had only ever had men. We keep the case because the supervisory lesson is timeless — preparing people for a disruptive change — and treat it in general terms: the same approach fits any change a group may resist, whether in management policy, work arrangements, or who works alongside whom.

The situation. A general foreman, Jim, was told by management to fill a supervisory vacancy. The change he was making would be unwelcome to part of the workforce — some would resent it, some would not like it, and more changes of the same kind were likely to follow. This was a major change, and Jim anticipated trouble. The question was whether he should do anything about it in advance.

The objective. Get the change accepted.

Weighing the options. The obvious actions were to call a mass meeting, post a notice on the bulletin board, or simply make the appointment and say nothing. Jim weighed each against his objective and against the likely effect on individuals and the group — and chose none of them.

The action he took. Jim thought it over, then talked individually with his supervisors and, separately, with the operators the others looked to as natural leaders. He gave them the facts in advance and asked for their help. When the announcement came there was a commotion — some said they would not stand for it — and Jim let them do their talking and vent their steam. The outburst ran its course and the people came around. Before the new supervisor started, Jim talked with her too: he told her plainly what she was walking into, asked her not to be easily offended, and asked her to do her best, since how it went would affect others who came after her.

Checking the results. Jim did not assume the matter was settled. On the new supervisor's first day he checked with his supervisors and, later, with the natural leaders. They told him the change appeared to be accepted. And because the change touched the whole plant, Jim kept in close touch with the situation for some time afterward, to be sure his preventive action had held. It had.

6The two cases side by side

Set the two cases next to each other and the contrast is the whole lesson of this section. The same four-step method runs through both. One supervisor skipped the weighing and never checked; the other did the weighing in advance and checked closely. The results followed.

Step	The shipyard old-timer	The preventive case
Get the facts	Took the few loud facts — the refusal, the bad attitude — and stopped there.	Gathered the facts and shared them in advance with supervisors and natural leaders.
Weigh & decide	Skipped. Weighed only a handful; ignored twenty years of service and the unexplained transfer.	Weighed the obvious options against the objective and the effect on the group; chose to prepare people first.
Take action	Fired the man — the wrong action, hard on him and on the watching department.	Briefed people individually, asked their help, let them vent, prepared the incoming person.
Check results	Never checked — assumed firing settled it. It did not.	Checked the first day and stayed close for some time, until sure the change had taken.
Outcome	Reversed by the union with full back pay; lost standing with the man, the group, and management.	Change accepted; relations held; objective achieved.