Fulfilling my duties as an advisor in one of the companies in which I had the pleasure of working, I was able to observe an altercation between the supervisor of the logistics department and a member of the Maestranza department. Some time later, two days ago (to be more exact) I witnessed another altercation between the Finance Manager and another member of the same department.
This led me to think about the possibility that perhaps this last department (Maestranza) had some relationship problems with other areas due to characteristic aspects that they made to the members of the sector.
In two cases, if the constant seemed to be the same, at least we had already identified the variable on which to direct our curiosity.
Seen from a staff or managerial position and following your own biases, it was certainly possible that the teaching staff was not trained enough to engage in a conversation within the same parameters and codes that a finance or sales executive demands. Or maybe that code difference was generating the short.
However, it seemed premature to be able to draw a conclusion from that situation without having first reviewed the organization chart of the company, which could give me a general picture of whether this relationship between the finance and master system was allowed or if the master system was prohibited directly. your direct communication with the finance system.
I approached the offices of the general manager to request the organization chart of the structure. Even though the company had a formal organization chart, it was clear that the Maestranza staff depended directly on the general manager and was not required to give explanations, much less to account to any management other than the General.
Under these circumstances, the case changed 180 degrees. It was evident that both the Finance Manager and that logistics supervisor had broken a rule. The masters did not have a direct boss that grouped them more than the general manager of the firm. And really as it was stated, there was no need to modify such relationship.
Many times, the organizational charts fulfill the function of differentiating hierarchies oriented to the concretion of common goals. (specialization of work). In itself, it is logical, that united by the same central objective (production), those who are part of a company establish communication channels according to the usefulness of each one towards its concretion. Under this reasoning, human relations are subject to the utility they can give to the institutional objective of the company.
But from an informal point of view, it is also very true that one has the freedom to be able to relate to whoever one wants and avoid those with whom a good raport is not established.
There are cases where the relationship must be socially sanctioned for being considered dysfunctional for the system, and others where it can be tolerated for being considered non-functional. In the cases, which, be seen as functional will be encouraged. Our interpretation of the fact was much simpler: was the secret in the perceived self-utility?
For administrative staff, their perception of usefulness was much greater in relation to their work with respect to Maestranza.
A week later, motivated by my curiosity, I had an interview of almost 40 minutes with the four members of the master's department. The subjects were very varied, and were related to labor issues as well as others of general interest.
To my surprise, the interviewees demonstrated the same degree of commitment and enthusiasm both for cases where the central theme was work and for those the subject had to do with it, such as the football match of the previous date.
It was evident that although not recognized by the majority of their peers, this group had as high a motivation as those who had already received extra salary awards for excellence in their work.
Actually, it was surprising, as a group without recognition from their peers, with no goals accomplished (more than a salary at the end of the month) demonstrated high motivation.
Was I able to go back to see all the manuals and books that I had read about human resources and administration during the studies in my degree career?
Everything seemed to indicate that what I had learned so far in matters of motivation and personnel management had nothing to do with what my eyes were observing.
Is the difference in codes in communication and instruction that generated these conflicts?
Although the interviewees in the higher hierarchy sectors pointed towards the same notion, certain qualifications had to be made in our analysis. One of the interviewees exclaimed "the masters work at blows as the mechanics cannot, due to cultural differences, establish a civilized communication with them".
It was then that I turned my attention to the mechanics department. On that occasion I remember finding a very low level of motivation. According to what I could find out, this was because the members of this sector had not been able to meet any of their monthly objectives and it was one of the departments that seemed least recognized by their peers.
Obviously the level of education (per se) did not appear to be the factor that generated the Inter shocks. departmental.
However, by comparing you learn, I could see a point that differentiated them. The Maestranza department depended directly on the General Manager, while the Mechanics department had at least five superior systems in its organizational chart that controlled and conditioned it.
For such a case, I could think that the less control the more motivation, but this was relative since the logistics department demonstrated a lesser degree of control and a greater motivation to the rest of the sectors. Control - or rather the ability to exercise it - did not seem to be the cause of the problem I was trying to study either.
The point that differentiated the Maestranza and Mechanics departments was frustration and the adaptation mechanisms to it. In the first case, there was a high level of frustration, but it had been possible to level it out by linking with the most influential individual in the structure. On the other hand, the second case separated from such benefit had nothing more than to be content with personal achievements (specification of stated objectives).
Paradoxically, the most dependent group due to their lack of initiative was motivated at the same level as the one that showed the most independence through the realization of all their departmental achievements. In this way, the concretion of goals does not fulfill a cohesion function but rather one of disintegration. In the sense that the accumulation of merits separates the individual from her closest reference group.
Failure as well as success fulfill a dual function, since on the one hand they differ however on the other they massify.
Within their ethos, both Pedro, Raúl, Rodolfo and Adrián (Maestranza) had been able to assimilate their frustrations through symbolic compensation. The fact of being close to the person who had the most influence in the destinies of all, made it much less burdensome the fact of not being objectively recognized for their task.
In such a case, any attempt to break that bond was answered with a hostile attitude, finalized by the phrase "You Lord, please, do not give me orders, go to my boss please", which not only constituted a totally assertive attitude, but In addition, it communicated in a precise and clear manner the provisions of the general organization chart.
The Finance and Logistics departments (which compared their achievements above this department) judged the work of the master's members as almost useless and therefore believed they had the power to transgress statutory norms that prohibited their direct contact.
The specification of objectives not only demonstrates differentiation from the rest that has failed, but also an exercise of power and obedience towards those who are in a supposed “inferiority of conditions” for not having complied.
The way to level this pressure makes the residual departments to be those that are closest to each other (in a bonding relationship) of those most strategic for the organization, thus structuring a centripetal relationship.
After this real experience, I was able to observe the same in other departments and companies in which I had worked. Clearly as I had thought, my first intuitions were mere class biases.
On the other hand, I understood that the valuation and recognition of the other is important to us, but it is also true that the symbolic value that this other has in our way of seeing the world also has a significant influence.
