The Corporate Asylum: Non-Entities

NON-ENTITIES

from The Inmate
July 1994/March 1995 Issue
reprinted by permission of the editor

It began several months ago in the warehouse. I had been leaning against a pole for fifteen minutes(during my break, of course!) when it suddenly moved. The pole introduced himself to me as a Cheetah Express Field Engineer. Then poles all over the warehouse started scurrying about, taking notes and watching you and me do our job. There must have been at least ten of them from all the different regions of Cheetah Express and thanks to them we were chosen to do the A.M. Sort Video.

This was our big chance. Not only would we have a shot at the big time and the big bucks, but we could show the rest of Cheetah Express what a well-run A.M. Sort looks like. We've been doing it for years so who would know better how to do it than those of us who have been doing it day after day after day? Who would know better what works and what doesn't? Who could possibly be in a better position to understand the practical aspects of a finely tuned sort or to experiment with new methods and procedures?

Obviously, a lot of people. Though some of us were slightly consulted(and insulted), it is important to note we were only "consulted." Take, for instance, the sort table. Had Alien or I, your faithful letter sorters, suggested a modification of the sort table it would have taken a vote in congress, national media coverage and a letter from Johnny Cochrane to get it changed, even though together we have over 20 years of experience sorting letters. A field engineer, however, who probably only sorts his own mail under supervision, can suggest it and the next day it's done. Who said dictatorship was dead in America? The sort table must have changed 3 or 4 times during the A.M. Sort Video filming, which prompts this question: If these guys know so much, why couldn't they get it right the first time?

And "stacking" was outlawed. I talked to Chet Humphrey, Cheetah Express's former head Field Engineer, about stacking letters for the sorters. The scanners started stacking for the letter sorters last year (it has been done off and on for years) and Alien and I both commented at how much faster it was. The letter scanners and Myra, our esteemed supervisor, noticed its benefits, but Mr. Humphrey, using technocratic language and charts about motion studies, told me it wasn't. It didn't matter that it actually was faster, what mattered was that on paper it wasn't and if it's on paper you may as well consider it was the finger of God who put it there. In its essence "stacking" is really a minor point. It would save a few minutes, but the important thing to remember is the opinions of those of us who do the job aren't worth a Drive to Deliver point, at least in some corporate circles. (Thankfully, both Matthew and Myra have listened to our pleas).

Practical and "field" or "craft" knowledge are being pushed aside in many companies by technocrats who sit in offices making decisions that are often irrelevant and, in worst cases, impossible to carry out. This is done while an important resource, the people who actually do the job, is rarely given the opportunity to make decisions they are the best suited to make and that affect them the most. The irony in all this is if CORP was willing to let those who do the job have more say about how the job was done, it would get done more efficiently and new methods would come into existence for a lot less money. That, however, would probably also eliminate some CORP desk jobs, which explains what most of us already know.

For people who shove a lot of paper and numbers into their oak file-cabinets, reality, often, does not matter to them. To many corporate types following procedures becomes more important than the actual completion of the job. The best illustration of this came with my unexpected check-ride(I thought we were just going to talk) with Chet Humphrey. After making a delivery, Chet wanted me(and you too) to write down, as I was walking away from the consignee(I'm not making this up), the address of my next stop. We probably discussed this one insignificant point for thirty minutes. I said the purpose of the gesture, as perceived by whoever thought it up(Isn't there something a little more useful to be doing?) was that couriers should know where their next stop is. He agreed. I also said if couriers know where their next stop is without writing it down, then there is really no need to write it down since they are fulfilling what it is the procedure was established for in the first place. This didn't go over. Probably, it could be said, it didn't even go under. It did, however, get stuffed down a very deep mine shaft. Though Chet admitted the purpose of the procedure is to know where your next stop is, he still insisted it should be done, even if couriers demonstrated they knew where they were going. I suppose this will help all of us look and act the same: like a mechanical monkey choking on a computer chip.

Underlying all this is that many in CORP think they have unique perspective on "know how" that we in the lower ranks do not. Attempting not to be too blunt, but also wanting to convey an important idea, let me just say, this is a crock of shit. One very simple example should suffice(in addition to the preceding). We are not allowed to leave international pieces without a signature--no exceptions. It doesn't matter if the house you are delivering to is twenty miles away from any known inhabitants, you have to get a signature. Basically, what this rule says is you and I are too stupid to be able to figure out where is or is not a safe place to leave a package. Not true. Oh sure, there are probably a few couriers who might leave a package on the doorstep of a house in a military zone, but not most. CORP, of course, is never guilty of bad judgment.

Instead of leaving a package where it will clearly be safe, we leave drop cards and redeliver the next day costing Cheetah Express more money than need be. Interestingly enough, I've left internationals, on occasion, in places that were obviously safe and no one has said anything to me about it. Which leads me to believe that deep down in their hearts CORP is hoping you'll do the same. By having that rule they absolve themselves of responsibility and can reprimand you if something goes wrong. It's kind of like having the perfect alibi when it's obvious to everyone you're guilty. All that needs be said, to dispense with guilt and accountability, is, "You didn't follow procedure," when it rarely occurs to anyone that the procedure, and not the courier, should be burned at the stake.

Recently, I read a speech given by the Cheetah Express Hong Kong Chairman, Po Chung. He was addressing the delegates of the Pacific Rim Forum in May of 1992. His speech was directed at management, but it is unfortunate that a lot of what he said is not applied to those on the lowest deck of the corporate battleship. Particularly applicable is his "Key Philosophy No. 1" which states simply, "Push decision to the lowest level." As indicated by the preceding paragraphs this is not often done at Cheetah Express. CORP's "Key Philosophy No. 1" would probably read, "Push decision on the lowest level." By allowing the real decisions to be made at the lowest level Chung says, "It forces them to use their common sense. It forces them to pick-up the skill that is needed for the position." He goes on to say that by pushing the decision to lowest level "we also give them the power to implement their decisions." Partly, that's the problem. CORP is not interested in giving up power. To some degree couriers do have autonomy. We decide how to do our routes and some other minor things, but many other decisions that affect us are simply made for us by CORP. CORP would probably argue that Drive to Deliver offers us the opportunity to get involved, but in reality it does not. We can offer our ideas, but are not allowed to dialogue with those who will make the decision to implement them. Those who offer suggestions often have the practical knowledge to make a good decision about the suggestion. CORP decides to accept or reject ideas in our absence. One of the most poignant things Chung said was, "A great mistake is to invite people to be involved and to contribute their ideas and then to exclude them from the decision-making process." Welcome to Drive to Deliver. Chung also said, "At the head of being accountable and to affect one's own destiny is having the opportunity to participate in making decisions." Amen and amen and amen.

Copyright 2003 The Corporate Asylum

Back to Journal | Home | Back to Top | Contact The Inmate