One of the steps that can be read in how much recipe has been invented to guarantee the results of a process, be it the creation of a product or the provision of a service, is undoubtedly the famous "follow-up" or "monitoring" of those responsible. or executors.
Follow-up or monitoring is sold as a way to ensure that the employee does what has been asked correctly, is in tune with the schedule or to avoid unnecessary delays. Monitoring the staff or their progress is usually associated with the periodic medical “check-up” of a patient, if it is okay, you will see a smile in the doctor, but the concern or the corrections will be evident.
But there is no stronger proof of the absence of responsibility, identification and even the capacity of a staff than, precisely, the presence of constant monitoring of their activities and achievements.
It is difficult to imagine that a person who is truly identified with his work requires another who is not only reminding him of his functions but also checking that they are carried out under the agreed standards. The foregoing is only valid when it is a period of adaptation and learning of a function or task, which is not only necessary but important as it nurtures the relationship between the individual and their responsibilities.
But once a period of maturity has been achieved in a position or level of knowledge and the person has demonstrated skill, capacity and expertise, do we have to continue to follow up?
The answer cannot be other. Of course not! That's what the evaluation of results is for.
The idea of follow-up, monitoring or supervision is a subconscious burden that has remained in the collective of cultural expressions where only through the omnipresent presence of the supervisor would the work be completed with quality and on time.
In Venezuela, the expression "the master's eye makes cattle fat" is used to justify long hours of monitoring.
In fact, hundreds of companies use the figure of the project coordinator, manager or leader to guarantee the presence of a person who follows up on the work of their subordinates, and prizes and incentives have even been offered for those who do it fully… declaring themselves so Obviously, incapable of hiring self-directed personnel to achieve high-level results.
There will be no one who will point out that monitoring prevents bad results and deviations, only true when you do not have the correct personnel and the possibility of delays or errors being high; Lack of expertise, experience, and knowledge, coupled with the absence of identification, increase these risks, so a concerned manager or supervisor will be attentive to anything that may affect the process.
But when the team is the ideal it will be he himself who spontaneously offers the status of his achievements and improvements. You will not need to be asked by anyone. Examples of this abound, from NASA space travel teams to Red Cross healthcare squads, from Microsoft programmers to Leo Burnett's creatives. Or at least that's the way it is in theory.
Being attentive to what the staff does during their work, as a way to guarantee service or product quality, is a sign of inefficiency when selecting and hiring staff, inexperience when establishing the candidate's profile and its relationship with it, inefficiency when managing and feeding the identification of employees with the company and with the work and, finally, an unequivocal declaration of inability to have responsible, mature, expert and self-motivated people who can carry out the work without having to experience the virtual whip of permanent monitoring of your activities.
