A fish rots from the head.

Background Context

An important client walks in the door (Internal link). Apparently, they came via recommendation from someone at Trimble (whom we know). They would have stepped their processes: they have a problem, they assessed that we could solve that problem - they came to our website, had a look around, and then judged: “maybe it’s worth trying them out?”

The client made it very clear, that this was a pilot job. Low risk. However on successful completion, more work would come.

The Normal Process

Normally, our Cheif would assign the most unreliable guy on our team to do the most important work. Typically they would do a passable and uninspiring job and the work would be flipped back to the client without any vetting. The client would typically make an assessment: “meh it’s ok, but not fantastic”, and walk away.

In this instance I suggested the following strategy:

(1) Put your most reliable guy on the job (2) Jack up the bonuses, because of the critical nature of the job. (3) Check the work. (4) The Key: Remove the bonus if the job fails.

Management is good at paying bonuses - but not very good at taking them away if the job is poorly executed.

What Happened

Management passed on the work to our most reliable guy. And the reliable guy in-turn hired, probably, the most unreliable employee in the entire organisation. The work was done, and not checked.

In this case, rather than management directly hiring someone unreliable, the operation was outsourced.

Thankfully management vetted the work before sending it out to the client.

Everything was subsequently redone, and completed to the required standard.

Internal Backcharges

It is policy that internal back charges ought to be applied for bad work. However, this is a policy but in name only.

I very much doubt that much of it is happening, certainly not as much as should

be. Possibly, because nobody is doing any checking. And problems arise only when the client checks and complains. Even then, back charges are not applied from the top, down.

It is my belief that internal backcharges should start from the top and work its way down.

The Typical Resolution

“I will take care next time sir”

“Yes, sir”

To me, that means: “yeah nah, not going to check. If a mistake happens, it happens. Meh.”

I don’t think mere words are enough to correct someone.

The job attracted a mere $30 in bonuses.

You have to chip away at their bottom line. Then, and only then will anyone realise: “Holy smokes, management is serious about this. If I screw up badly, I cannot get away unscathed - he is going to take away my bonus!”

Naturally I do not want to take away someone’s bonuses, but if I see something that is almost criminal, I will ask the question, conduct a full investigation, and then assess:

• How did this error happen?
• Was it due to a lack of training?
• A misunderstanding?
• Was it due to a lack of checking?

If it was due to a lack of checking, I would apply a back-charge without compunction direct to the Team Lead.

And the team lead can then choose, whether that back-charge should be charged to individuals in their team, or in someone else’s.

Team Leads will want to get rid of unreliable Juniors

Firstly, everyone will be on notice: that bad work WILL BE PENALISED.

And secondly, if a junior is unreliable, then Team Leads would be keen to remove them from their care.

Back Charges Must be applied where relevant

• It improves quality, massively.
• And it will highlight juniors who are not pulling their weight.
• It improves client retention
• And allows us to fire bad clients, or unprofitable clients.
• We can have more reliable work thorughout the year.

The benefits are immense, and the consequences for letting bad work, through, unscathed, are correspondingly disastrous

Back charges must be applied in this case after a thorough investigation.

And everyone will swiftly fall in line.

Conclusion

Backcharges must be applied from the Top Down