THE OPERATING CODE | 012

KNOW WHERE THE DECISION BELONGS

If you want people to grow, you have to let them make decisions. If you require them to call you every time something doesn't go exactly according to plan, eventually you'll get exactly what you've trained them to become: people who call you every time something doesn't go according to plan.

But the opposite can create just as many problems. Giving somebody responsibility doesn't mean giving them unlimited authority. Part of developing good judgment is understanding which decisions you can make yourself, which decisions require somebody else's involvement, and when you need to stop before doing something you can't undo.

When somebody encounters a problem in the field, I want them thinking about possible solutions. But that doesn't necessarily mean I want them waiting until they have the answer before telling me there's a problem. Those are two different responsibilities, and I believe understanding the difference can save a considerable amount of time.

Notify Early and Keep Thinking

The seriousness of a problem should determine how quickly other people need to know about it. If it's a routine field condition that a qualified foreman can handle within his authority, I expect him to work through it. But if the situation could affect the scope of work, schedule, engineering, material, cost, an outage, or customer requirements, I want to know about it early.

That doesn't have to be a lengthy conversation. Sometimes a foreman can simply call and say, "We ran into an issue. I just sent you a couple pictures. Let me work through some scenarios, and I'll get back with you."

That's enough to get things started. The foreman hasn't handed me the problem, and I haven't taken responsibility away from him. He's still evaluating the condition and developing possible solutions, but now I can begin looking at it from my side.

While he's examining the physical condition, I can review the photographs, pull up the construction drawings, check the scope of work, and determine whether the proposed changes are something we can authorize ourselves or whether the customer or Engineer of Record needs to be involved. If outside approval may be necessary, I can begin preparing for that while the foreman continues working through the problem.

Maybe he calls me back with two possible solutions. By then, I may have identified a third. Now we're having a productive conversation because we've both had time to evaluate the situation.

Compare that with a foreman calling four hours later to explain that they've been dealing with a problem all morning and have finally developed a couple of options. Now I have to stop what I'm doing, review the drawings, examine the photographs, understand the condition, and determine whether somebody else needs to approve the proposed solution.

If customer or engineering approval is required, that process is only now beginning. We didn't save four hours by waiting to notify somebody. We lost four hours when we could have been working on different parts of the problem at the same time.

That's why I believe early notification and escalation shouldn't automatically be treated as the same thing. You can keep somebody informed without asking them to take over.

Bring Options and Understand the Boundaries

Once the condition is understood, I still expect the person closest to the work to think about how it might be resolved. Rather than simply telling me there's a problem and waiting for an answer, I'd rather hear what they're seeing, what they've already checked, and what options they believe are available.

If they have two possible solutions, we can evaluate them together. Which one makes the most sense? Does either introduce additional risk or affect quality? If the first approach doesn't work, can we return to where we started? Are we about to cut, remove, relocate, or permanently modify something? Have we encountered a similar condition before, and what did we learn from it?

I'm not asking those questions to make somebody guess which answer I want. I'm trying to help them develop the judgment to evaluate those considerations themselves. Eventually, I want them asking those questions before they ever call me.

One of the first things I want people to understand is the boundary between the work we're authorized to perform and work that falls outside the agreed scope.

An unforeseen condition may look like a simple field problem, but the proposed solution could require additional labor, material, equipment, outage time, or cost. At that point, it may no longer be a decision about how to perform the work. It may involve additional work that requires authorization.

Being capable of doing something doesn't automatically mean you have the authority to commit the company to doing it.

The same thinking applies when a solution requires material. I don't just want to hear that we need a part. I want to understand what part is required, where we can obtain it, how quickly it can be delivered, and what other work can continue while we're waiting.

One blocked activity doesn't necessarily mean the entire project has to stop.

Know When to Stop

There are certain decisions where I expect people to stop and verify their authority before proceeding.

If the proposed solution deviates from the stamped Engineer of Record drawings, involves cutting or permanently modifying something, or creates a condition that can't reasonably be returned to its original state, I want that decision reviewed before the work proceeds.

The harder something is to undo, the more important it becomes to understand the consequences and obtain any required approvals before making the change.

That doesn't mean every field adjustment requires management, customer, or engineering approval. Construction drawings can't anticipate every physical condition that people will encounter.

For example, the planned route may show something turning left, but the actual site condition requires going underneath an obstruction before making that turn. If the alternate route remains within the approved scope, meets the applicable requirements, and doesn't require a separate approval, that may be a perfectly reasonable field decision.

There's a difference between changing how you accomplish the work and changing what you're required to accomplish.

People need to understand that distinction, along with any customer or engineering requirements that limit their authority. A change that appears minor in the field can still require approval if it affects an engineered detail or another controlled requirement.

And if I can't understand the condition from somebody's description, I want them to send me a picture or video. It's much easier to make a sound decision when everybody is looking at the same condition rather than trying to interpret it from a telephone conversation.

Use the Experience Around You

Sometimes a competent foreman will call me with a problem, and instead of immediately giving him an answer, I'll ask what happens if we don't do anything right now. Does the problem stop the entire job, or can the crew continue working on something else? Have we encountered this situation before? What did we do the last time?

Those aren't trick questions. I'm trying to get people to recognize and use the experience they already have.

If you've solved essentially the same problem three times before, you should be developing the confidence to recognize when that experience applies again. The conditions may not be identical, but the lessons you've learned should help you evaluate what you're seeing.

Sometimes the answer is also standing ten feet away. Ask the crew what they think. Somebody working directly with the equipment or installation may have noticed something the foreman hasn't.

That doesn't mean every decision becomes a vote or that the chain of command no longer matters. Somebody still has responsibility for making the decision, but that person doesn't have to be the only one contributing ideas.

As people gain experience, I expect the conversations to change. Someone who's still learning may call and explain that they've encountered a problem and don't know what to do. Later, I'd like to hear them describe the problem along with a couple of possible solutions.

Eventually, I want them to be able to say, "Here's the problem, here's what we've checked, and here's what we think we should do. I need your approval before we proceed."

At that point, they may not need me to solve anything. They may simply understand that the decision exceeds their authority.

Sometimes my answer may be that I'm comfortable with their recommendation. Other times, I may need to tell them not to proceed until we get the customer or Engineer of Record involved. In the meantime, we can determine what other work the crew can safely continue.

The decision may need to move to another level, but that doesn't mean the responsibility for thinking through the problem has to move with it.

Authority Has to Be Taught

One of the lessons I've learned over the years is that management can make a serious mistake by assuming employees understand where their authority ends simply because management understands it.

People don't automatically know those boundaries, and having a policy in an employee handbook doesn't guarantee they'll recognize how it applies when they're standing on a jobsite facing something they've never encountered before.

Customers have different requirements. Regions have different regulations. Equipment and procedures change, and people encounter situations their previous experience may not have prepared them for.

That's why I believe understanding authority needs to be part of training and ongoing leadership, not just something we explain after somebody makes a mistake.

When somebody makes a poor field decision, accountability still matters. The person who made the decision has a responsibility to acknowledge what happened and learn from it. But I also believe management needs to ask whether that person was adequately prepared to recognize that the decision wasn't theirs to make.

Sometimes the answer will be yes, and the employee disregarded something they clearly understood. Other times, the situation may reveal that our training wasn't complete, our procedures weren't clear, or our expectations hadn't been communicated as well as we thought.

Maybe the organization began working in a new region or for a different customer, and the people doing the work encountered requirements they hadn't previously dealt with.

If we stop the investigation at the person who made the mistake, we may miss an opportunity to prevent somebody else from making the same one.

I want to understand why the decision made sense to that person at the time, whether they understood the limits of their authority, and what we need to change if they didn't.

The Principle

I don't want people calling me for permission to do their jobs, but I do want them keeping me informed when a significant problem could eventually require involvement at my level. Those aren't contradictory expectations.

A foreman can notify me about a problem without handing it over. He can continue evaluating possible solutions while I review the information, consider what approvals may be needed, and determine whether there are resources available to help.

That's how we can save time without creating unnecessary dependence.

I don't want somebody waiting four hours to tell me about a significant problem because they thought they needed to have the answer first. And I don't want them calling every ten minutes because something didn't go exactly according to plan.

I want them to understand the difference, and I believe it's leadership's responsibility to help them develop that judgment.

Too much escalation can create dependence, while too little can expose the organization to unnecessary risk. Waiting too long to notify the right people can also waste valuable time that could have been spent working toward a solution.

A strong leader doesn't need to make every decision. A strong leader develops people who understand which decisions they can make themselves, which problems require early notification, and when the authority to proceed belongs somewhere else.