The waitress and the owner's wife served the customers. The cook and the assistant manager worked as a team, split the duties and didn't miss on a single meal. There was not a single complaint. Everyone was served their meal in under twenty-five minutes. Compliments abounded. Deservedly, the skeleton staff gave each other a high-five at the end of the hour.
Later that night, with a full complement of staff available and not more than twenty patrons in the restaurant, food quality was inconsistent, waitresses argued over tables, customers complained and kitchen and wait staff blamed each other.
So which would you rather manage:
- a seriously understaffed group of highly engaged employees with a heavy workload risking burnout, or
- a full complement of staff including a mixture of engaged, disengaged and actively-disengaged employees with a light workload
- the risk of burnout is low when people love their work and engage highly into it
- there is no time for excuses when it's busy
- people only become territorial and disruptive when they think they are better than others (entitlement)
- actively-disengaged is like a cancer in an organization that needs to be removed before it spreads
- other engaged people are attracted to exciting and vibrant workplaces of high-productivity
- people complain when they are bored so the point is to keep fewer people busier and make the work mean something
- waiting for the "right" employee is smarter than settling for the "right now" employee
- it's far easier to build a strong Culture when there are no actively-disengaged employees fighting you
No comments:
Post a Comment