Mr. Lagbaja, a business man, urgently needed to buy some new cars and so he drove down to Company A, an automobile dealer.

When he got to Company A’s gate, he blared his horn, requesting that the gate open the gate so he could drive in. The gateman refused, stating clearly that it was against the company’s policy – customers were not allowed to drive their cars into the company’s premises for any reason.

On hearing this, Mr Lagbaja asked to speak to the Manager. The gateman who felt he was doing his job, insisted that there was no point in seeing the Manager because the rules should not be bent. And so, Mr Lagbaja had to leave Company A and go over to Company B, a competing automobile dealer.

On getting to the gate of Company B, Mr Lagbaja was told again that he could not drive into the premises – company policy. Like he did at Company A, Mr Lagbaja asked the gateman if he could speak to the Manager. This time, the gateman sent for the manager.

Mr Lagbaja explained to the manager that the reason why he could not leave his car parked outside was that he had about 50 million Naira in it and he felt it wasn’t safe.

On hearing this, the manager instructed the gateman to open the gate for Mr Lagbaja to drive in and he bought cars worth 50 million Naira. He also narrated to Company B manager, the experience he had with the gateman at Company A, and how he was turned back because the gateman insisted he couldn’t speak to the manager.

Now, the managers of both companies A and B happened to be friends, and so naturally, company B manager put a call across to company A manager and told him what he had heard from Mr Lagbaja and how much sales he had lost because he was turned back from the gate.

The gateman at company A was sacked immediately the story got to the ears of the management.

Be the judge. Were they right to have sacked the gateman?

Source

Oh sure they were!!! An employee is employed to not only do his job but to do it effectively and that requires the use θf initiative/discretion! Lack θf these do not only lead to unproductivity, it results in silly and unpardonable losses as was the case with the GM θf company A.

spicy v: Oh sure they were!!! An employee is employed to not only do his job but to do it effectively and that requires the use θf initiative/discretion! Lack θf these do not only lead to unproductivity, it results in silly and unpardonable losses as was the case with the GM θf company A.

That is bad HR.
The employee in question is a security guard, and is not employed to use his discretion. In fact, the gateman should sue them for unlawful termination, and he would get a good payday.
What if Mr Lagbaja was an armed robber, or an assassin who planned to off the Manager? His orders were simple; don't open the gate. And he obeyed to the letter.

That car dealership will likely get robbed someday, or will still sack many gatemen.

AjanleKoko:

That is bad HR.
The employee in question is a security guard, and is not employed to use his discretion. In fact, the gateman should sue them for unlawful termination, and he would get a good payday.
What if Mr Lagbaja was an armed robber, or an assassin who planned to off the Manager? His orders were simple; don't open the gate. And he obeyed to the letter.

That car dealership will likely get robbed someday, or will still sack many gatemen.

I am amazed that you say the employee is not employed to use his discretion! Very amazed! Now, he was given an instruction, was he employed to make decisions regarding who should see the manager or not? It was sloppy and gross misconduct for him to have refused the visitor the right to see the manager! Infact he should not only have been fired, his salary should also have been deducted so he learns that being a security guard does not exempt you from contributing to the growth θf your organization and it is also not a license to be stupid!!!

spicy v:

I am amazed that you say the employee is not employed to use his discretion! Very amazed! Now, he was given an instruction, was he employed to make decisions regarding who should see the manager or not? It was sloppy and gross misconduct for him to have refused the visitor the right to see the manager! Infact he should not only have been fired, his salary should also have been deducted so he learns that being a security guard does not exempt you from contributing to the growth θf your organization and it is also not a license to be stupid!!!

It's okay to be amazed. Abi.
But I am sure you will fire almost everybody you work with, if you have that attitude.
Not sure where you work but . . . most companies don't want mavericks working for them. Certainly not security guards, especially in this age of terrorism and high-impact crime.

AjanleKoko:

It's okay to be amazed. Abi.
But I am sure you will fire almost everybody you work with, if you have that attitude.
Not sure where you work but . . . most companies don't want mavericks working for them. Certainly not security guards, especially in this age of terrorism and high-impact crime.

Funny! Funnier is your maverick reference and funniest your assumption! Anyways, its your assumption which you are entitled to have! So carrygo Sir!!!

I think the gate man should have put a call across to the manger, to explain all this to him. For sure the gate man did the right thing, but we all know the kind of environment we operate here. One thing I have realised in life is that, on a particular task a person fails to execute properly, someone else will do the job properly, using his discretion and get all the credit. In all we need to be able to manage people and situations well, that's the Height of business.

When he got to Company A’s gate, he blared his horn,

I know this is a case study, but Why the heck do people still do this? I had a run in with my grandma's neighbour last year
I mean with GSM, twitter,pinging etc why the hell cant he call his wife or security guard to open the gate instead of blaring the horn for over 10minutes at 11pm

A sack was extreme, a stern warning with instructions on what he could do differently, next time a similar situation arises would have been okay in my opinion.

Saw this story on Jobberman's page.

But abeg park small o, make gateman sue ke? Nibo lo ti ma rowo? (Where will he see the money?)

Considering he's at the lower cadre and has violated no 'term of contract', sacking that guy based on his discretion was extreme IMO.

As fictional as this story could 1% likely occur, one "what-if" analysis is "what if the dude that was denied entry came with criminal intent?"

Security guards do use their judgement sometimes to override control procedures but the deal remains that control has its purpose and trust should be assumed to be zero.

Well, the rules-based vs principles-based debate goes on.

Mustay: Saw this story on Jobberman's page.

But abeg park small o, make gateman sue ke? Nibo lo ti ma rowo? (Where will he see the money?)

Considering he's at the lower cadre and has violated no 'term of contract', sacking that guy based on his discretion was extreme IMO.

As fictional as this story could 1% likely occur, one "what-if" analysis is "what if the dude that was denied entry came with criminal intent?"

Security guards do use their judgement sometimes to override control procedures but the deal remains that control has its purpose and trust should be assumed to be zero.

Well, the rules-based vs principles-based debate goes on.

In a country like the USA (run by lawyers), there would be no shortage of lawyers offering pro-bono services to our gateman friend
Sue now, share profits later

But regarding the case study, it's safer to go rule-based for lower-cadre staff. Expecting them to use their initiative is usually a recipe for disaster.
In fact, if you receive N50m cash onsite at your business, you're even creating a security risk for yourself.

AjanleKoko:
But regarding the case study, it's safer to go rule-based for lower-cadre staff. Expecting them to use their initiative is usually a recipe for disaster.

Good point. That should kill the 'discretion' debate.

AjanleKoko:
In fact, if you receive N50m cash onsite at your business, you're even creating a security risk for yourself.

The author bin wan do us Tales By Moonlight. Even persin brother sef no go wan tell u say dat kain money come him coy like dat. Penkeleemeesi

I'd go with the argument that the gate man should have used his discretion in this case. Although he had explicit orders to refuse customers from driving their cars into the company's premises, he had no such instruction to turn them down if they requested to see the company's Management. His refusal to allow access to the company's management was his own personal judgement which eventually cost the company a lot in revenue.

violent:

I'd go with the argument that the gate man should have used his discretion in this case. Although he had explicit orders to refuse customers from driving their cars into the company's premises, he had no such instruction to turn them down if they requested to see the company's Management. His refusal to allow access to the company's management was his own personal judgement which eventually cost the company a lot in revenue.

This pretty much sums it up nicely.

While it may be reasonable to say that low-cadre staff are better off following the rules and shelving their discretion, the guard DID employ discretion in denying the customer access to the manager. From the disclosed facts, the decision was wholly his, not company policy.





Rules are hardly all-encompassing as the makers are scarcely able to anticipate every possible scenario that may arise. No matter how small, i reckon that an amount of discretion is left to the enforcer of the rule. It is simply unfortunate that his wisdom (or lack thereof) cost the company revenue.



Perhaps the guard ought to be reprimanded for his pig-headedness, but i think the severity of the punitive measure here is extreme.

^^
Consider that the request to see the manager might have also required the gateman to allow the customer and his vehicle into the premises.
The case study is not explicit on that point. Also, there might have been standing instructions relating to unscheduled visitors to the management. All of those factors play some role in the decision-making.

In a court of law, the winning judgement could be from the premise 'if the manager had in the past refused to give permission to the gateman in a similar situation'

"On hearing this, Mr Lagbaja asked to speak to the Manager. The gateman who felt he was doing his job, insisted that there was no point in seeing the Manager because the rules should not be bent."

I like the viewpoints of the last 3 comments. The keyword here is FELT. He has exercised discretion and whether this discretion was beyond the scope of his responsibilities is the koko. His feeling according to him was very much related to the rules. So, I'd say he followed laid-down procedures even if the consequences were +ve/-ve. However, it remains to be seen from the case study if the coy rules linked parking of cars to contacting any personnel. Is granting meeting or contact requests the gateman's job?

Bad case study and example.

No be small something,see grammar they blow everywhere like bomb o

AjanleKoko: ^^
Consider that the request to see the manager might have also required the gateman to allow the customer and his vehicle into the premises.
The case study is not explicit on that point. Also, there might have been standing instructions relating to unscheduled visitors to the management. All of those factors play some role in the decision-making.

The request to see the manager might have also required the manager coming out to see the visitor or delegating a subordinate to attend to the visitor. Also, it is unrealistic to assume that a business entity such as that which was sited in this case(car dealer) would categorize any visit as unscheduled! It is not a govt. Parastatal or the likes.

The company has to take responsibility in this case. If you have not provided appropriate customer service trainings to your low-level staff, you cannot expect them to make such "high-level" decisions. This is why you have an organizational chart. Low-level, mid-level, upper management, and executive staff.

The protocol the company should give staff not upper or executive management is: "if customer say he wan see manager, go to "Femi." This person should be an expert at handling customer related issues. In Nigeria, everyone likes to point fingers here and there. But in this case, the company reporting and protocol process has failed. Operations and customer service managers need to take responsibility step up and stop blaming the poor gateman.

Its a cop out of a failed management system.

obowunmi: The company has to take responsibility in this case. If you have not provided appropriate customer service trainings to your low-level staff, you cannot expect them to make such "high-level" decisions. This is why you have an organizational chart. Low-level, mid-level, upper management, and executive staff.

The protocol the company should give staff not upper or executive management is: "if customer say he wan see manager, go to "Femi." This person should be an expert at handling customer related issues. In Nigeria, everyone likes to point fingers here and there. But in this case, the company reporting and protocol process has failed. Operations and customer service managers need to take responsibility step up and stop blaming the poor gateman.

Its a cop out of a failed management system.

You are right about getting staff trained but then organizations can never train you enough! If you decide not to help yourself stay relevant in your job but always wait for your company to educate you then that is the height θf laziness and a lack θf foresight!

I also want to point to you sir that low level positions are not reserved for people with a lack θf good sense or judgment! Skills that the GM clearly lacked! He also lacked experience, if he at least had adequate experience he sure would not have made such silly and costly mistake!

Question please, do you really consider that GM's decision as a "high level" decision?

spicy v:

You are right about getting staff trained but then organizations can never train you enough! If you decide not to help yourself stay relevant in your job but always wait for your company to educate you then that is the height θf laziness and a lack θf foresight!

I also want to point to you sir that low level positions are not reserved for people with a lack θf good sense or judgment! Skills that the GM clearly lacked! He also lacked experience, if he at least had adequate experience he sure would not have made such silly and costly mistake!

Question please, do you really consider that GM's decision as a "high level" decision?

This is why you have protocol exercises and you have to test the practical skills of your employees, with "real - life" situations to prepare them.

Anyone that costs the company money is making a costly decision. I don't want to delve into management issues but I will say. Let this company re-train all their staff (high, mid, low) and test their pratical skills.

spicy v:

You are right about getting staff trained but then organizations can never train you enough! If you decide not to help yourself stay relevant in your job but always wait for your company to educate you then that is the height θf laziness and a lack θf foresight!

I also want to point to you sir that low level positions are not reserved for people with a lack θf good sense or judgment! Skills that the GM clearly lacked! He also lacked experience, if he at least had adequate experience he sure would not have made such silly and costly mistake!

Question please, do you really consider that GM's decision as a "high level" decision?

Not receiving adequate training, making wrong decisions has nothing to do with laziness.

Low paid staff should never cost a company this amount of money. Since it has, it is the company's fault NOT the gateman.

obowunmi:

Not receiving adequate training, making wrong decisions has nothing to do with laziness.

Low paid staff should never cost a company this amount of money. Since it has, it is the company's fault NOT the gateman.

Sir, you obviously didn't get my point! I never stated or insinuated that the absence θf adequate training and the inability to make right decision is a sign θf laziness! How can that be? I am saying that expecting to receive adequate training from an organization alone is a sign θf laziness! You must take responsibility to give yourself some training, that is why the internet, books and mentors exist! If for any reason a low level staff lacks access to the internet and books, he shouldn't lack access to experienced people who can answer questions he hasn't answers to!

Your conclusion that low paid staff should never cost a company huge losses is wrong! (I say its wrong because I assume you mean they should never be held responsible for their actions that results in losses)

obowunmi:

This is why you have protocol exercises and you have to test the practical skills of your employees, with "real - life" situations to prepare them.

Anyone that costs the company money is making a costly decision. I don't want to delve into management issues but I will say. Let this company re-train all their staff (high, mid, low) and test their pratical skills.

I agree with you on this, the company certainly has to retrain their staff! But then, if they do not, the staff ought to learn from the experience and become acquainted with initiative and insightful discretion.

I'd be proud to have such a gateman. UNODIR- Unless Otherwise Directed.
you wanna run a ship-shape outfit, KISS- keep it simple, stup.

spicy v:

I agree with you on this, the company certainly has to retrain their staff! But then, if they do not, the staff ought to learn from the experience and become acquainted with initiative and insightful discretion.

You are assuming a low level staff will make the right decisions for your company. That's what I am reading.

If you don't tell some people what to do and you can't train, re-train them properly or "test" their practical skills. Don't assume that they will take the initiative to make the right decision for your company.

obowunmi: The company has to take responsibility in this case. If you have not provided appropriate customer service trainings to your low-level staff, you cannot expect them to make such "high-level" decisions. This is why you have an organizational chart. Low-level, mid-level, upper management, and executive staff.

The protocol the company should give staff not upper or executive management is: "if customer say he wan see manager, go to "Femi." This person should be an expert at handling customer related issues. In Nigeria, everyone likes to point fingers here and there. But in this case, the company reporting and protocol process has failed. Operations and customer service managers need to take responsibility step up and stop blaming the poor gateman.

Its a cop out of a failed management system.

At what point do you separate "common sense" decisions from "High-level" decisions? bearing in mind that both, regardless who is responsible, could cost a company a business running into billions?

If you instructed your gateman never to use his mobile phones at work, would you have expected him to use "common sense" decisions to give you a quick ring if he was alone in the premises when a customer who wanted to strike a mega-deal came calling?

If you instructed your mai-guard never to leave his security post, would you have expected him to use "common sense" decisions if someone suffered heart attack and he was in a position to get them help?

Common sense, mate, shouldn't be mixed up with "high level" decisions.

High Level Decisions involve:

How many cars do we have to take delivery to break even for the rest of the year?

Common sense decisions involve:

Fine, i know i can't bring in my car, but can i at least talk to someone, i really want to buy a car from you guys.


If anyone claims they needed to be trained on how to respond to the latter, then i wouldn't want to employ them in the first place.

Spicy: if we lived in a perfect world, where everyone reasoned the same way and had high IQs, then you can assume that people will make right decisions for your company. Then you can expect them to always take initiative and have your company's best decision at heart.

What I'm hearing you say is a very passive and very risky way to live. You are basing other people's judgement on your assumptions.

I've talked about protocol in my first post. Let the company take responsibility.

obowunmi: Spicy: if we lived in a perfect world, where everyone reasoned the same way and had high IQs, then you can assume that people will make right decisions for your company. Then you can expect them to always take initiative and have your company's best decision at heart.

What I'm hearing you say is a very passive and very risky way to live. You are basing other people's judgement on your assumptions.

I've talked about protocol in my first post. Let the company take responsibility.

You can't train everyone on everything.

Part of the basic skills anyone, regardless of status, is expected to bring to a job, is discretion!

It's why company's don't hire 5 year olds in the first place.

Why would i want to hire or even keep someone who needed to be trained on how to respond when a customer asks for directions to the toilet?

violent:

At what point do you separate "common sense" decisions from "High-level" decisions? bearing in mind that both, regardless who is responsible, could cost a company a business running into billions?

If you instructed your gateman never to use his mobile phones at work, would you have expected him to use "common sense" decisions to give you a quick ring if he was alone in the premises when a customer who wanted to strike a mega-deal came calling?

If you instructed your mai-guard never to leave his security post, would you have expected him to use "common sense" decisions if someone suffered heart attack and he was in a position to get them help?

Common sense, mate, shouldn't be mixed up with "high level" decisions.

High Level Decisions involve:

How many cars do we have to take delivery to break even for the rest of the year?

Common sense decisions involve:

Fine, i know i can't bring in my car, but can i at least talk to someone, i really want to buy a car from you guys.


If anyone claims they needed to be trained on how to respond to the latter, then i wouldn't want to employ them in the first place.

I won't get into a back and forth banter.

This is an incomplete case study and very bad example. Why doesn't a bank send or hire a gateman to close accounts and find clients? Why isn't a gateman president of LEAP Africa? Why do they need to hire bankers, or sales persons and experts to get the job done.
,
Why don't you hire a gateman as a teacher to teach your kids.


Everyone has a specific level or skillsets, and the gateman's strengths are not in closing accounts and deals. They are part of the customer service process but that is up to the company to train staff appropriately, create protocol and assign tasks. The company has a level of responsibility.


Once again, I won't get into a back and forth. Its getting boring and repetitive.