Are most decisions made by UPS proactive or reactive?

[Just Numbers]

What do you think...give examples

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

There are many examples but the first that comes to mind are the rear cameras on the package cars, which was a reactive decision based upon an awful tragedy.

 

[cachsux]

Reactive on almost every level.

As Upstate mentioned many times only when something significant forces they're hand.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

You would think that bring proactive would be more cost effective in the long run.

 

[bottomups]

Telematics was brought on board to be proactive for vehicle maintenance.

 

[Catatonic]

If you consider 98.7% to be most, then most definitely reactive.

Actually, that's probably low.

 

[cachsux]

You would think that bring proactive would be more cost effective in the long run.

To those with common sense, yes. But don't forget who we work for.
I will say that NOTHING happens , that costs money, that isn't reactive due to something major happening either with our or a similar company. And even then it's done because making the change is cheaper than the consequences of not making the change.

 

[Just Numbers]

The only things I think were proactive were Saturday Air and Early AM.....though I'm not sure about the second one.

 

[Catatonic]

You would think that bring proactive would be more cost effective in the long run.

Proactive has more risk inherently.
If it is something that is obvious with little or no risk then UPS does these very well.
Reactive has little or no risk with the decision going forward.

UPS Management is risk adverse by nature.
It is deeply embedded in the UPS culture.

 

[Rico]

Proactive, by nature, is harder to quantify than reactive because if you are doing it right, you are avoiding or minimizing the effects, and/or costs of a business decision that has turned out other than as planned. Proactive also tends to cost money today, than may, or may not pay off tomorrow.

 

[Integrity]

What do you think...give examples

Just Numbers,

My experience has led me to the following general opinion about may of decisions that I have witnessed over many years:

Many of the bad management decisions have been reactive.

Most of the good management decisions have been reactive.

The proactive actions I have observed are extensive when it comes to covering up what actually goes on for one of the many audits that happen in a corporation of this size.

Management has called this cover up "preparing for the audit".

Sincerely,
I

 

[1989]

Always reactive, but added "expect the unexpected" in order to be proactive. you know, to cover their butt.

 

[upsoldtimer]

In business since 1907….that will make it 107 years come this August…..Proactive or reactive? I don't give a hoot. Keep doing whatever you are doing baby…..GO UPS!!!

 

[Signature Only]

When Koenig tells his team he's "going with him", regarding a wavering, seemingly unconfident Linden, in essence Koenig is going with the man.

It is this decision that underscores his faith in the people of Alpha. He must believe in them.

Their survival depends on it.

If he can't trust his people, Alpha and its inhabitants are doomed

They must be tested and ultimately trusted to do their jobs.



Too bad we can't substitute "UPS" for "Alpha"

 

[Alexcross774]

I would say reactive, you can definitely get yourself in trouble when being proactive if you make the wrong call. When people complain about Management not being proactive, what they are probably seeing is them NOT being reactive. If you choose to operate in a reactive state, you have to be ready and able to make quick decisions. And that is usually what fails. People see the problem developing, but fail to adjust quickly enough before it all goes to hell.