The Four Control System Steps

It has come to the attention of management that the time stated on time sheets is not reflective of what is actually being worked. For a couple of reasons and irrespective of whether time is being understated or overstated, this behavior will not be accepted and must be corrected going forward. The reasons for this need range from the bottom line to the accurate payment of wages. Workers should be claiming precisely what was worked on a project or during a shift. A modest amount of rounding and approximation is acceptable. However, such rounding should never exceed fifteen minutes at the beginning or end of any shift. Another reason that accurate time reporting is needed and necessary is because there needs to be accurate reporting when it comes to the aggregate and real costs of a project. This speaks to the progress that is or is not being made, whether a project is within budget, whether workers are being more or less productive than is expected or projected and so forth. The proper measurements of the work cost leads to the business being able to pay the proper amounts and reallocate resources is the situation demands it. It goes without saying that payment of wages that are not earned is a real concern among the wider concerns that are in question here. However, it is far from the only consideration in play and the firm will not punish or fire anyone so long as the person acts in good faith and responds to requests for compliance and adjustment (Dawkins, 2014).

With that in mind, there will be redundancy when it comes to the monitoring of work being completed and reported. The primary method by which work time spent will be measured has been and will remain the reporting of the employees and managers on each project. However, those reporting data sets will be tracked for outliers like overages, shortages, incomplete reporting, reporting that is clearly not possible, duplicate entries and so forth. The idea here is not to micromanage. Instead, it is simply verifications and checks to make sure that the project and its workers are proceeding as they should. Standards will be drawn up in advance of this monitoring. There will then be a comparison between what was expected and what actually happened. It is entirely possible that the expectations can be altered if they are out of line with reality or what is possible. However, that will not happen unless there is a clear and proven reason for that being necessary. Put another way, the standards will be adjusted and changed if they are out of line with what is actually happening. Assuming that no such adjustment is necessary, there will instead be a shift towards looking for deviations and non-compliance from those standards (Study.com, 2018).

For situations where there is clear deviance from the required standards, corrective action can and will be taken to resolve the situation. This can include coaching and training on how to report things properly. It can also include employees being disciplined or even terminated for reporting figures that are sloppy or knowingly false, for whatever reason. Mistakes can and will happen and the process is certainly new to everyone at some point. As partially noted above, good faith and making an effort to improve with each passing rep or cycle is the desired order of things. So long as active deception is not going on and people are learning from any newness or mistakes being made, that is the way things are supposed to work. The work cycle and process is not about “gotcha” moments or getting rid of people for the sake of it. However, there are some levels of behavior and incompetence that cannot and will not be tolerated. Accurate and complete reporting is a must and any fair or reasonable steps to accomplish this end will be taken. Workers or managers that are concerned or that have questions should certainly feel free to question the leadership on how to proceed if there is any doubt. The normal escalation path should be the immediate reporting manager of the person in question. However, breaking from that path is acceptable if there are concerns about the manager in question (Study.com, 2018).

When it comes to the owner and/or executive of a small business, it is not the least bit odd to see that person have a lot of involvement with every little detail of the business. This includes daily operations, resolving problems, working with vendors and so forth. For example, the owner of a restaurant may be heavily involved and invested with a lot of the tasks including guest relations, food preparation, hosting, cleanliness and so forth. Regardless of the example, there comes a point where the owner/executive has to start relying more and on delegation of duties, outcomes and responsibilities. The main reason for this is that the owner/executive will get stretched thinner and thinner. It may seem like a huge opportunity cost for him or her to do this, however, given that there are perceived problems and shortcomings that someone has to resolve. This is where proper delegation of duties comes in. While delegating to managers is often the course taken and that option can work well, it is also wise to make use of self-directed teams that police themselves and complete what needs to be completed.

A traditional top/down management structure can indeed be functional and useful for a business to operate well. Meaning, the executives, managers and supervisors of the firm will communicate down the chain in terms of what is needed, when it is needed and why. However, there are some employment situations where a more modern and agile approach can be even better. Indeed, there are many firms that have a number of teams. Of course, the ownership, executives and managers of the firm will have ultimate command and control of the business. However, it can be useful and effective to let the teams control and regulate themselves. The reason this tends to work quite well is that the extended empowerment and trust leads to very good outcomes because everyone is invested in a positive and useful way. There is the need to have defined processes and procedures. There are certain rules that should be non-negotiable. However, many to most things involved should be subject to improvement, perfection and review. It is not the least bit unreasonable for the management and executives to have final say on any changes that are made. However, the best changes can (and often do) come from the people that are on the “front line” of operations and tax completion. Rather than management and executives having to do their normal duties and also collect the details related to solving problems and perfect processes, they can instead step back a bit and just keep a tab on things. In many ways, the team members can figure out the rest on their own (Mauritis, Veer, Groenewegen & Francke, 2017).

Another huge upside to the team approach is that there is not a huge need for scheduling, structure, ranking and so forth. Putting everyone (or at least most people) on an equal plane can often be good enough to facilitate what needs to happen. Again, there are certain lines that should lead to corrections and adjustments being made. The idea here can be off-putting and jarring to some people as it goes against the “grain” of what is traditionally expected and enforced. However, this is a natural evolution of business and it is a net improvement in the way things are done, at least in most situations (Divol & Fleming, 2012). There are environments where a looser structure is not the way to go. However, that would not be true for most situations where the people involved are mature and educated to at least a minor degree. Even production and other blue-collar paradigms can benefit from this (Hopp, Iravani & Liu, 2009).