Last week, we were reminiscing with a former colleague, and the story of my second most expensive bad decision came up.
At that time, I was asked to represent the European factories in a project, but I also remained a factory manager. The two were clearly too much together, so I was able to hire a deputy for myself.
We found the "perfect" candidate, a man in his fifties, economic and technical education, sound resume, good impression. He really was what the stereotype of a factory manager should be, or at least what an old fox headhunter had described to me a few weeks before. Along with the fact that he condescendingly told me that I urgently needed a technical degree to at least come close to this stereotype.
The colleague started. It soon became clear that he is technically not there, does not understand the contexts in production, does not have much idea about increasing efficiency, and despite this, he has a very firm opinion. He didn't manage to get himself accepted, he couldn't manage his immediate team, and THE PLANT didn't take him seriously either. There has never been such a consensus among production, maintenance and quality assurance, at all organizational levels, than that he is not up to the task.
I worked a lot, it took me a while to notice and understand that this is not an initial rebellion against change, but a real problem. And it took me another few months and millions of HUF before I could solve it. I've been thinking a lot about where I went wrong, and I think on two counts.
If I don't have that headhunting conversation that went really wrong, I can probably pay attention to what kind of the character he has and his basic values , and spot a potential problem ahead of time. I had to learn, that even though a resume is beautiful, the person himself, the openness to personal development, the attitude and the right set of values are also necessary for success. In fact, sometimes we need to give advantage to factor ’x’ over experience.
The other point is actually not a mistake, but a lack of knowledge. The task was temporary, for a few months, since I was also partially present, there was no need for an extra 40 hours of labor per week, and in addition, if my project ended, I would not have been able to do anything with his working time and costs. If I know about the interims then, I will go for that option. There is no recruitment cost, the colleague comes for as many days as needed and stays as long as he is needed, and if he does not work out, he can be removed without any costs or legal considerations. In the short term, an experienced professional should have been needed three days a week, not a senior manager in the long term, as a permanent colleague.
It cost us a lot, we learned from it, and he became a legend. The only thing the PLANT ever fully agreed on…
by