Parable of Two Managers

[Apollos]

I want to bounce an idea off the community. I want to give a talk to young adults on the theme of Man being made for the Sabbath versus the Sabbath being made for Man and I want to construct a parable to illustrate the difference between people who think that “rules are made to be served” versus people who think that “rules are made to serve us”. I want to know if the parable says enough, or if maybe I should revise it so it works better.
**Once upon a time there was a fast food restaurant with a day manager and a night manager.

During the day shift, one of the cooks called in sick. Unable to find a sub on short notice, the day manager took his place. While he was cooking, he ate a french fry. It was against the rules to eat while cooking. So he reported himself for the violation.

During the shift change, the incoming night manager saw the write-up and asked the day manager for an explanation. The day manager said, “Had I caught a regular cook doing that, I would have reported him; I cannot make an exception for myself.”

During the night shift, the night manager caught a cook eating a french fry. At the end of the shift the cook came into the manager’s office to sign the writeup, only to find that the manager had decided to let it go. The manager explained, “Had I done that myself, I would have let it go; I cannot be any stricter with a subordinate than I am with myself.”

Who is the wiser manager?
**Thanks ahead of time for your feedback.

 

[JohnDamian]

Who is the wiser manager?

The day manager.

Not only did he believe in the rules that are in place; and we are talking about useful and valid rules here - but he also applied those rules justly and fairly without discrimination - even to the point where he himself was punished.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Who is the wiser manager?

Neither. There is clearly a problem with employees being able to follow the rule, as not just one employee, but also a manager violated the rule. This suggests a discrepancy between the rules and the real on-the-job world which needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the rule is unneeded and needs to be removed. Perhaps there is a valid reason for the rule, and more employee education needs to take place. Perhaps a “free food” station for employees needs to be set up outside the kitchen. However, the repeated violation of the rule is indicative of a systemic problem that will not be solved by merely continuing to write up employees that break the rule.

 

[Apollos]

Neither. There is clearly a problem with employees being able to follow the rule, as not just one employee, but also a manager violated the rule. This suggests a discrepancy between the rules and the real on-the-job world which needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the rule is unneeded and needs to be removed. Perhaps there is a valid reason for the rule, and more employee education needs to take place. Perhaps a “free food” station for employees needs to be set up outside the kitchen. However, the repeated violation of the rule is indicative of a systemic problem that will not be solved by merely continuing to write up employees that break the rule.

It’s actually a sanitation rule in real life. Eating while cooking runs the risk of contaminating your hand and/or whatever you are cooking in case I guess a crumb falls into it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It’s actually a sanitation rule in real life. Eating while cooking runs the risk of contaminating your hand and/or whatever you are cooking in case I guess a crumb falls into it.

Good to know. As for your story, I still think both managers are missing the point. The focus is being placed on whether or not a writeup happens, yet the most important thing is that two batches of contaminated french fries were served to customers. If the restaurant doesn’t address this, they will go out of business and no one will care which former employee got written up and which didn’t.

 

[R_Daneel]

I would say: let’s get away from the particulars of the story and get more generic. The story addresses a kind of “employee theft” and there is lot of employee theft going on. The managers are supposed to prevent such theft, by sticking to some procedure. In the example the story is about petty theft, the taking of something which has no value. In any reasonable company such losses are never taken seriously, they belong to the acceptable loss (like a fry falling on the floor).

In this light the day manager is an idiot. He knows about the rules, ways and means to prevent theft, and yet he engages in it. When he committed the act, he was aware that he should not do it, and he was aware that if he caught someone else, he should report it. Only a total idiot would do it under such circumstances. (Caeteris paribus, of course).

The night manager is more reasonable. He decides that the loss to company is less than negligible, and the price of prosecution is a much bigger loss than the material loss in question. He should warn the employee about it, and that is all. Or implement a better policy.

 

[promethius]

He decides that the loss to company is less than negligible, and the price of prosecution is a much bigger loss than the material loss in question.

Incorrect. The price of an FDA or OSHA investigation and penalty is MUCH higher than the cost of a french fry. As others have noted, the problem isn’t a negligable loss of materials, but rather 1) the unsafe practice of consuming food on the line and 2) the unsanitary process thereby serving legally contaminated food to customers.

At any rate, the managers are set to follow corporate policy. That’s what they’re hired to do. They don’t have the moral right to change that corporate policy unless they’re specifically instructed that they are given that authority.

In that light, the first manager messed up, and then he did his job and wrote himself up as he was hired to do. He took the moral high ground despite the personal hardship.

The second manager doesn’t care for corporate policy, and doesn’t enforce the rules as he is paid to do. He’s immoral in that if he did wrong, he would fail to report it, and that he is cheating his employer by failing to do his job. He’s jeopardizing his company’s time and money with his actions in order to give leniancy that ISN’T HIS TO GIVE. It’s morally wrong, he’s a terrible employee, and he should be fired.

 

[promethius]

I want to know if the parable says enough, or if maybe I should revise it so it works better

As you can see from my post just above, the second manager is morally bankrupt and should be dismissed. Forgiveness of transgression does not apply when it is not in the power of that person to dismiss something like that.

Also, I think the “parable” represents the difficulty of enforcing morality on yourself, even when that’s the hard choice to make. I don’t think it properly describes why the sabbath was made for us and not vice-versa.

 

[R_Daneel]

Incorrect. The price of an FDA or OSHA investigation and penalty is MUCH higher than the cost of a french fry. As others have noted, the problem isn’t a negligable loss of materials, but rather 1) the unsafe practice of consuming food on the line and 2) the unsanitary process thereby serving legally contaminated food to customers.

As I said, I was talking about the general concept, rather than the actual example. I think that the problem should be viewed in a more general way. Besides, the hot oil or fat sanitizes whatever falls into it… so “contamination” should not be an issue.

At any rate, the managers are set to follow corporate policy. That’s what they’re hired to do. They don’t have the moral right to change that corporate policy unless they’re specifically instructed that they are given that authority.

In that light, the first manager messed up, and then he did his job and wrote himself up as he was hired to do. He took the moral high ground despite the personal hardship.

The second manager doesn’t care for corporate policy, and doesn’t enforce the rules as he is paid to do. He’s immoral in that if he did wrong, he would fail to report it, and that he is cheating his employer by failing to do his job. He’s jeopardizing his company’s time and money with his actions in order to give leniancy that ISN’T HIS TO GIVE. It’s morally wrong, he’s a terrible employee, and he should be fired.

Think about a “misappropriated” pencil as a “theft”. These items have no considerable value, they are taken as used items in the line of performing one’s duty. No sane corporation cares if someone would put a pencil in his pocket for his home use. It is not worth to worry about it. Obviously there is a line, where the value merits persecution.

I think you are more concerned about following a rigid rule-set than the spirit of the rule. I think differently. No surprise there.

 

[promethius]

As I said, I was talking about the general concept, rather than the actual example. I think that the problem should be viewed in a more general way. Besides, the hot oil or fat sanitizes whatever falls into it… so “contamination” should not be an issue.

I’ve worked a food line before. It’s been since college, but the situation with sanitation of food has not become less. Watching one episode of “Hell’s Kitchen” will reveal that sanitation laws are exceedingly strict. The problem is that “hot oil or fat” somehow sanitizing food does not dismiss the legal requirement that workers not consume food on a food preparation line. If such a thing were discovered by the government, the restaurant would be fined.

Think about a “misappropriated” pencil as a “theft”. These items have no considerable value, they are taken as used items in the line of performing one’s duty. No sane corporation cares if someone would put a pencil in his pocket for his home use. It is not worth to worry about it. Obviously there is a line, where the value merits persecution.

I think you are more concerned about following a rigid rule-set than the spirit of the rule. I think differently. No surprise there.

Not at all. If the manager in question were the owner and wanted to excuse the theft of a pencil, I’d probably say he’s the better owner. If the manager in question didn’t have a clear policy directing him to write up employees who steal pencils in effect, then the discretion falls to the manager, and such a manager is probably better.

However, it is not the moral right of the manager to decide. It’s the CORPORATION’s right. As I said, the manager is paid to enforce corporate policy. If the policy says you write up any employee who steals a pencil, then the manager’s salary revolves around enforcing that policy, and the manager should be justly punished or dismissed if he gets caught dismissing that policy.

You cannot be charitable with what is not yours to give, that is theft. In this manner the manager is wanting to be charitable, but in reality is allowing theft by inappopriately dismissing something that is not his to give away: he’s allowing theft, and failing to do his job: in effect stealing his salary because he isn’t doing the work he is assigned.

I would point, then, to the parable of the talents: the manager who fails to enforce the corporate policy as he is paid to do is a worthless servant who cannot be trusted with small things and therefore cannot be given more to manage with any level of reliability.

In my mind, it’s not a matter of what is the better policy, but on whose right it is to make changes to that policy. That is NOT the shift manager, but the corporate level decision to make… even for something as simple as a pencil theft, but much more so for a situation where a restaurant could garner government fines.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’ve worked a food line before. It’s been since college, but the situation with sanitation of food has not become less. Watching one episode of “Hell’s Kitchen” will reveal that sanitation laws are exceedingly strict. The problem is that “hot oil or fat” somehow sanitizing food does not dismiss the legal requirement that workers not consume food on a food preparation line. If such a thing were discovered by the government, the restaurant would be fined.

I don’t dispute that. The goverment is well known for nonsensical policies, and having the power, it can enforce them.

Not at all. If the manager in question were the owner and wanted to excuse the theft of a pencil, I’d probably say he’s the better owner. If the manager in question didn’t have a clear policy directing him to write up employees who steal pencils in effect, then the discretion falls to the manager, and such a manager is probably better.

Agreed on both counts.

However, it is not the moral right of the manager to decide. It’s the CORPORATION’s right. As I said, the manager is paid to enforce corporate policy. If the policy says you write up any employee who steals a pencil, then the manager’s salary revolves around enforcing that policy, and the manager should be justly punished or dismissed if he gets caught dismissing that policy.

You cannot be charitable with what is not yours to give, that is theft. In this manner the manager is wanting to be charitable, but in reality is allowing theft by inappopriately dismissing something that is not his to give away: he’s allowing theft, and failing to do his job: in effect stealing his salary because he isn’t doing the work he is assigned.

I would point, then, to the parable of the talents: the manager who fails to enforce the corporate policy as he is paid to do is a worthless servant who cannot be trusted with small things and therefore cannot be given more to manage with any level of reliability.

In my mind, it’s not a matter of what is the better policy, but on whose right it is to make changes to that policy. That is NOT the shift manager, but the corporate level decision to make… even for something as simple as a pencil theft, but much more so for a situation where a restaurant could garner government fines.

I read you loud and clear. You prefer the letter of the law to the meaning of the law. I simply happen to disgree. If a law, policy or regulation is dumb and unproductive, then a “good servant” should expose this stupidity rather than mindlessly enforcing it. This is the fundamental difference between us.

 

[promethius]

I don’t dispute that. The goverment is well known for nonsensical policies, and having the power, it can enforce them.

So then I’d think that, for the purposes of risk management, you’d agree that because the government could and would fine a restaurant for such behavior, that the risk management decision regarding eating on the line is not really at the discretion of the shift manager when it is the corporation who would be fined for such a policy.

I read you loud and clear. You prefer the letter of the law to the meaning of the law. I simply happen to disgree. If a law, policy or regulation is dumb and unproductive, then a “good servant” should expose this stupidity rather than mindlessly enforcing it. This is the fundamental difference between us.

Conversely, I think the spirit of the law has everything to do with it… where the law leaves such room for interpretation. In fact, I agree with you that the job of a good manager is to bring attention to policies that he believes are inappropriate… but he does that by notifying his superiors of areas he thinks are problematic. I don’t know if you’ve ever had training in any field of corporate management, but I have, and companies spend a lot of time and money formulating effective policies. Many companies hire expensive consulting firms to help them establish policies. Thus it may not be in the shift managers field of understanding as to why a particular policy exists. In this case, the shift manager is expected to ASK about the policy to his superiors. Until such time as he has a response, however, he has a responsibility to follow that policy, particularly when it is strictly written.

In my position, I have had to nail people to the wall when I thought they did something minor precisely because of policy. I also made a note in such “write-ups” that I disagreed with the action of writing them up. Occasionally, that changes my leaderships’ mind, the write-up is dismissed, and the policy is changed (I’ve even re-written some policies as a result). Other times, I get an answer as to why the policy was put in place, the policy stands, and the person receives their write-up. But as a good manager, I do my job and would get fired if I got caught letting people out of policies without consulting my executive leadership.

The answer to bad policy is informing the level of management responsible for policy (generally corporate management or an owner), not taking things into your own hands regarding a company and property that you as a manager do not even own. I repeat, it is impossible to be charitable with something that isn’t yours to give.

 

[R_Daneel]

So then I’d think that, for the purposes of risk management, you’d agree that because the government could and would fine a restaurant for such behavior, that the risk management decision regarding eating on the line is not really at the discretion of the shift manager when it is the corporation who would be fined for such a policy.

Yes, I agree as far as the specific example goes. But I am not talking about this very specific question, I am trying to contemplate the “big picture”.

Conversely, I think the spirit of the law has everything to do with it… where the law leaves such room for interpretation. In fact, I agree with you that the job of a good manager is to bring attention to policies that he believes are inappropriate… but he does that by notifying his superiors of areas he thinks are problematic.

Certainly this is the “preferred” way. Just like there is a lawful way to “petition the goverment when the population has grievances” - granted by the US Constitution. What I am interested in, what is your view about the problem when such petitions go “unanswered”? There may be a law which would explictly prohibit the “civil disobedience” as an alternate course. Would you follow this “law of the land”? Do you think that in the case when the law is crystal clear and prohibits questioning that law, then it is one’s absolute duty to follow it, no matter what the law might say?

 

[promethius]

Certainly this is the “preferred” way. Just like there is a lawful way to “petition the goverment when the population has grievances” - granted by the US Constitution. What I am interested in, what is your view about the problem when such petitions go “unanswered”? There may be a law which would explictly prohibit the “civil disobedience” as an alternate course. Would you follow this “law of the land”? Do you think that in the case when the law is crystal clear and prohibits questioning that law, then it is one’s absolute duty to follow it, no matter what the law might say?

Obviously not. For example, armed revolution against the government is illegal, and yet if the government were to throw away the constitution, do away with elections, etc and so forth, then it is the specific duty of the people to rise up and overthrow those people to restore the moral order and proper mode of their government.

Further, if a law mandates imorality, it is the duty of the people NOT to follow such a law. For example, if hospitals are to be MADE to provide abortion services, the catholic church will close its hospitals rather than participate in an immorality.

But those situations aren’t really analogous to the original example at all… as a citizen, my job is not to enforce the law on others. As a manager, that’s specifically my function. As a citizen, if I have no real choice in where I’m born, so I am either a obedient citizen or a disobedient citizen. As a manager, I specifically chose to accept that job and to enforce the policies and i can leave that job at any time if it becomes unacceptable to me. As a citizen, I pay to help the government construct fair laws and governance. As a manager, I am paid to enforce the policies of the company.

In other words, the difference between a government requiring immoral laws of its contributing citizens and a manager refusing to implement the policies of the company from whom he takes pay are not similar enough to draw a comparison.

 

[Chiral]

I want to bounce an idea off the community. I want to give a talk to young adults on the theme of Man being made for the Sabbath versus the Sabbath being made for Man and I want to construct a parable to illustrate the difference between people who think that “rules are made to be served” versus people who think that “rules are made to serve us”. I want to know if the parable says enough, or if maybe I should revise it so it works better.
…
Thanks ahead of time for your feedback.

Apollos, I would have to say, given R Daneel’s confusion as to the subject-matter of the story (thinking the issue is about french-fry theft vs health-code violations, noting that the story does not specify that the french-fry was eaten over boiling oil and quite possibly was eaten over the sandwich-making station where contamination is a ‘real risk’) that your parable requires significant revising.

For one thing, the ‘rule’ the story focuses on is more akin to Jewish prohibition against ‘unclean’ food, e.g. pork. This was a rule meant to serve the people, but a normal starving Jew would probably still eat pork rather than die and not expect divine retribution for the act. I very much doubt that the manager or cook were ‘starving’ when they ate the fries. Theirs is a selfish negligence or lack of self-control with regard to health-codes set in place to protect all. Kant’s categorical imperative is sufficient argument against them. The rule is not meant to protect the cook, but to protect individuals external to himself. The cook will not likely get sick from his own germs/viruses/contamination, but someone else might. Only the person who afterward gets sick has the authority to forgive him the offense - he cannot justly forgive himself nor allow some other unaffected person to forgive him.

Please note, the health-code rule was put in place because the reality is that people really do get sick as a result of contamination from negligent food-handlers, and that eating on a prep-line really is a significant source of contamination. The reality is that the ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ of the law are invariant in this case.

The Sabbath prohibition against labor is not comparable. This law does not protect the recipients of the labor (unlike how the health-code protects the recipients of the food being prepared). Instead, the law protects the laborers themselves. It prevents abuse by employers who might otherwise refuse the laborer a weekly holiday, it maintains the health of the laborer by offering a day which he/she can use for rest and relaxation, a chance to take stock of the creation which surrounds him, of his family and personal health, etc. The benefits to the laborer are myriad. And it furthermore establishes a pattern of piety, the morals of which will suffuse the rest of the individual’s life, his connections to others, etc. Lastly, it is a duty owed to God as Creator. By violating the prohibition, the laborer offends primarily himself and God. Offending God hurts that relationship, which in turn again hurts himself, so he mainly is hurting himself.
But not all labor on the Sabbath offends God, only that which insults piety or the dignity of the laborer. THAT is the ‘spirit’ of this law. Can you think of a similar example in our daily lives from which to formulate your alternate parable?

 

[sedonaman]

I hardly think eating one french fry qualifies as “eating”.

 

[Apollos]

Sorry for the delay.

First, when you eat a fry on the line, you put one end in your mouth and nothing else gets touched and there are no crumbs.

I thought the night manager was wiser, because he understood the purpose of the rule and he knew no real harm was done, and he knew the cook knew. So there’s no reason to discipline the cook. The rules are meant to serve us, and he judged the cook in light of the real issue, sanitation.

The day manager did no harm either, but he childishly thought some kind of “justice” would be served if he punished himself for nothing. He thought the rules were at least as important *in themselves *as what they were made for.

Also, the rules could have been otherwise, and it is possible to make rules that allow you to eat on the line without contaminating the food, but that would be a complicated rule like “you can eat on the line if you don’t touch your mouth, and if you do, you must sanitize your hands before touching the food again, and you need to keep your fork off the prep surfaces, or else sanitize the place where it touched them, and … and … and”, but that’s insane.

“No eating on the line” is just a way of saying, “Be sanitary”.

 

[Apollos]

The day manager.

Not only did he believe in the rules that are in place; and we are talking about useful and valid rules here - but he also applied those rules justly and fairly without discrimination - even to the point where he himself was punished.

If there was a nuclear war and only you and one other person survived, and you were a policeman, and you caught the other guy jaywalking, would you ticket him?

 

[Apollos]

Neither. There is clearly a problem with employees being able to follow the rule, as not just one employee, but also a manager violated the rule. This suggests a discrepancy between the rules and the real on-the-job world which needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the rule is unneeded and needs to be removed. Perhaps there is a valid reason for the rule, and more employee education needs to take place. Perhaps a “free food” station for employees needs to be set up outside the kitchen. However, the repeated violation of the rule is indicative of a systemic problem that will not be solved by merely continuing to write up employees that break the rule.

If enough people break a law, should that law be repealed?

 

[Apollos]

Good to know. As for your story, I still think both managers are missing the point. The focus is being placed on whether or not a writeup happens, yet the most important thing is that two batches of contaminated french fries were served to customers. If the restaurant doesn’t address this, they will go out of business and no one will care which former employee got written up and which didn’t.

There is also a second focus on the reasons each manager gave. They both had justice or fairness in mind, but they used it in opposite ways.

As I said in an earlier post, we are assuming there was no contamination, so I should rewrite it to make that clearer.

I assumed that everyone above the age of 21 has worked in a fast food kitchen!