EMPLOYEES AND SYSTEMS “It seems to be easier to have accountability where there are systems,” says Mike Denker, president and general manager of Hopkins & Porter, in Potomac, Md. At the 28-person company, Denker works directly with three core managers in administration, sales, and production. Each of these managers — as well as subordinates — has a clearly defined role, job description, and career path. “If we have a situation where people aren’t accountable across departments,” he says, “it’s usually because of a flaw in our system.”
Systems keep things running smoothly and keep everyone accountable. If nothing else, pointing out glitches in a system brings issues out of the realm of the personal. The company has a matrix, a step-by-step analysis of how each process runs. “It’s a detailed form that shows everybody in the process, what their responsibilities are, and who is in charge every step of the way,” Denker says. He looks at the nodes or hand-off points, such as the hand-off from design to production, as places where there could be finger-pointing.
Holding people accountable to a system also fosters teamwork and “creates a comfortable synergy,” Denker says. The company holds weekly staff meetings, post-job debriefs, process-improvement meetings, and employee evaluations more than once a year. Each point provides an opportunity for employees to learn from their mistakes as well as from their good efforts. “The worst thing for an employee is to hear bad news for the first time,” Denker says. “If something happens in the middle of the year, you handle it then.”
There is, of course, always the possibility that someone is not a team player. In that case, Denker says, “maybe that person is the wrong person for the job.”
For the most part, though, the company culture carries through from hiring to placing individuals. “We refer to our vision mantra: integrity, proven value, outstanding service, lasting relationships, traditional craftsmanship, award-winning design,” Denker says. The team’s sense that each individual is pulling for the other is “promoted by the company culture.”
ANSWERING TO CLIENTS The promise made to clients varies from remodeler to remodeler. “That promise, and the willingness to be accountable, is a primary differentiator between competitive contractors,” says Halsey Platt, president of Walter Platt Builders, in Groton, Mass., a $6 million company serving an often demanding, high-end clientele. Platt regards the promises his company makes in three categories — budget, time, and quality of workmanship — as being relatively equal among top remodelers regardless of company size or volume. But a fourth category — contractor accountability — is the one that he believes differentiates companies in a client’s mind. “A commitment to accountability, honesty, and integrity; a respect for clients and their family; and the promise of confidentiality,” Platt says. “That’s what companies should be marketing; that is their primary differentiator.”
Platt believes accountability to clientele is a “very simple formula” based on three questions that the client might ask:
Once you start asking and answering these questions, it’s important to measure whether your system is working. Platt holds a brief meeting with each client every two weeks to find answers to these key questions: 1) Are you pleased with everything that has gone on in the last two weeks? 2) Is there anything we want to bring up that has occurred during the last two weeks? 3) Is there anything that’s happened in the last two weeks that will change the project’s completion date? 4) Is there anything that’s happened in the last two weeks that will change the final cost?
Doing this every two weeks ensures that no issue is more than 14 days old. “The small issues don’t build up and become collection points for other frustrations,” Platt says.
Then, Platt asks clients face-to-face to rate the company on a scale of 1 to 10. “It’s an effective tool,” he says. “Some clients will say they’re hard markers and will never give you a 10. We had one project where a client rated us an 8 one week. Then a 2. Up to a 5, then to a 7. We finished the project at a 9 because we had a system to ask for feedback and had the ability to respond to the client’s needs.” Platt responds quickly to issues and makes changes. Clients see the system as a means of feedback and control; it is one way they can hold Platt accountable, and Platt’s employees take it in stride. In fact, Platt says, “we talk about the numbers in our 30-person company pretty actively. The lead carpenter wants to know what the number was that week. The field guys want to know. We review all the scores from all the projects once a month at our field training meetings. We’ve created a thirst, a hunger, for that information, and it’s made a positive difference for our clients.”