Question:
In yesterday’s blog, you mentioned a Post-It Note mentality. What’s a Post-It Note mentality?

Response:
When Elliott Jaques described the four states of mental processing, he was describing the way our brains perceive the world. This perception is used in problem solving and making decisions. I found this picture of a Post-It Note way of seeing the world. Below the picture I have clipped in the descriptions of Jaques four states. You tell me.

• Stratum I – Declarative Processing – the ability to focus on single task, direct output, solving problems through trial and error. Logic consists mostly of opinion without evidence to support.
• Stratum II – Cumulative Processing – the ability to piece together separate elements of a problem, pattern detecting, solving problems through past experience, documented in SOPs, best practices.
• Stratum III – Serial Processing – the ability, not only to see patterns, but cause and effect relationships between elements. Problem solving through comparative analysis, root cause analysis. The ability to sequence discrete elements into an efficient system.
• Stratum IV – Parallel Processing – the ability to handle multiple serial processes simultaneously. Not multi-tasking, but seeing the interdependency, contingency and bottlenecks that exist between multiple systems and sub-systems. Problem solving through systems analysis.

Post-It Note mentality. Which is it?

Question:
How do you distinguish between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

Response:
I love analogies. When we attempt to describe capability, we most often fall into analogies.

• This person has a Post-It Note mentality.
• We need more band-width in this role.
• We have to get more horsepower on this project.

When I press for articulation, most often the explanation is another analogy. But when I look around the room, everyone knows intuitively what is meant by Post-It Notes, band-width and horsepower.

So, what’s the difference between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

Elliott Jaques (Requisite Organization) most clearly depicted these different states of thinking and corresponding levels of work –

• Stratum I – Declarative Processing – the ability to focus on single task, direct output, solving problems through trial and error. Logic consists mostly of opinion without evidence to support.
• Stratum II – Cumulative Processing – the ability to piece together separate elements of a problem, pattern detecting, solving problems through past experience, documented in SOPs, best practices.
• Stratum III – Serial Processing – the ability, not only to see patterns, but cause and effect relationships between elements. Problem solving through comparative analysis, root cause analysis. The ability to sequence discrete elements into an efficient system.
• Stratum IV – Parallel Processing – the ability to handle multiple serial processes simultaneously. Not multi-tasking, but seeing the interdependency, contingency and bottlenecks that exist between multiple systems and sub-systems. Problem solving through systems analysis.

So, now you tell me. What’s the difference between Ten years experience and One year experience ten times?

Question:
As I look at Elliott Jaques model organization, I notice that it is a hierarchy. Over the years, I have heard, or been taught, or read articles about how it is important to flatten out the hierarchy, drive decision-making down to the front lines, closer to the customer. It makes sense to me, but Jaques seems to ignore these new flat organizational models.

Response:
Your observations about Elliott Jaques’ high regard for hierarchy is correct. And these new organizational models really aren’t new. The flat organization, for all its well intentioned “new-ness” is the way things were before there was hierarchy.

Most people see organizational layers as reporting relationships. Who reports to whom? Who is a direct report? An indirect report? A dotted line report? This view lends itself to command and control and the push-back is predictable in today’s business environment. The central question is NOT, who reports to who, but which manager can be held accountable for the output of the team member?

Elliott saw things differently. Elliott was a scientist who spent his time observing both functional and dysfunctional organizations. He didn’t make up warm and fuzzy theories, he observed, in a scientific way. He gathered data, documented his findings and arrived at principles he found helpful.

Elliott observed, in functional organizations, that each layer had a Time Span orientation distinct from the next and that, if you drew a picture of those layers, from the longest Time Span goals at the top to the shortest Time Span goals at the bottom, you ended up with a picture of hierarchy. If his findings had been a circle, he would have reported it to be a circle, but his findings supported hierarchy.

As he examined each layer, he found that problems were solved differently. And the way problems were solved was directly related to the Time Span of the goals each layer was working on.

The value he found, in this hierarchy, was the capability of each successive layer to assist the next layer down with their problem solving. This capability created a value stream for problem solving and decision making throughout the organization.

Where we get screwed up with all this push-back on hierarchy is that we see hierarchy as a reporting structure. The real power of hierarchy comes from its value stream. Here is the way Elliott saw it:

Every employee is entitled to have a competent manager with the Time Span capability to bring VALUE to their problem solving and their decision making.

I asked Ralph how accessible he was. “Oh, I have an open door policy. In fact, I cannot remember the last time I closed my door.”

An open door policy sounds like an admirable leadership trait, when, in practice, it can create unintended results. An open door policy can actually train your team members that you are the fastest way to solve a problem. As the manager, you can become the shortcut that prevents independent research, arriving at new ideas, or formulating original strategy.

On the wall, behind the swivel chair of one of my favorite clients, is posted the following phrase, “What are you going to do about that?”

You see, an open door policy has little to do with the door.

“The problem is, you look at the resume instead of the role you are trying to fill. You ask questions about the resume, instead of asking questions about the role and the candidate’s experience and capability related to the role,” I responded.

“But the resume is their experience,” Alisha repeated. “It’s the biggest piece of paper in the process.”

“The reason the resume is the biggest piece of paper is because you haven’t documented the Role Description, and you haven’t created a bank of questions off the Role Description. You are not prepared.”

“That’s not true,” Alisha protested. “I have several prepared questions going into the interview.”

“How many is several,” I asked for clarification.

“Well, seven or eight,” she replied.

“What if I told you, that you needed 60-80 prepared questions to feel really prepared?”

Alisha stopped. “Well, it is my decision.”

“When was the last time you conducted an interview for an open position on your team?”

“Nine months ago, we had to replace someone who left,” she replied.

“That’s part of the problem,” I pressed. “Hiring Managers don’t interview candidates often enough to get good at it. And when you do have to hire someone, there are all kinds of distractions that keep you from spending the time required to be fully prepared.”

“No, not at all. I have the time to spend to make sure I do this right,” Alisha pushed back. “I looked at the job description we updated last year for this position. It’s really pretty good. And we have some good resumes to look at.”

“So, you have some interviews scheduled this week?”

“Yes, I do, three appointments set up,” Alisha sounded confident.

“And, you’re prepared to talk to these candidates?”

“Well, yes. I have their resumes. That’s what I key off of. In my mind, I know what I am looking for, and I use their resume as a guide.”

“Did you ever think their resume was created by a professional headhunter, and that they’ve been coached, done role-play, all with the intent of beating you in a game of cat and mouse? If you use the resume to guide you in the interview, you are playing right into hands of the candidate. Is it possible the candidate has done more preparation for this interview than you have?”

“I just don’t know if he can do the job,” lamented Morgan. “It always seems to be a throw of the dice.”

“Why should it be a gamble?” I asked. “Why shouldn’t you be absolutely certain if Randy can do the job? He has worked here for two years.”

“Yes, but he has never been a supervisor before. And if we promote him and he can’t do the job, we will be stuck. We will either have to demote him or fire him. And demotion doesn’t work very well.”

“How can you be sure that he can perform all the tasks of a supervisor before you give him a promotion?” I probed.

Morgan had a blank stare for a moment, and then he realized it was a leading question. “You mean I should give him the tasks of a supervisor before I promote him?” Morgan was smiling now.

“Yes, not all at once. If you test him with project work, identical to the tasks of a supervisor, over a six week period and he is successful, you promote him. If he fails, you just stop giving him supervisor stuff.”

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
What do you feel are truly the most effective skills that I need to think about as a new manager?

Response:
Hiring and firing, top of the list. The most important skill for any manager is the ability to select the right team members. This makes all other management skills seem like a walk in the park.

The manager who selects the wrong team members will forever spend time trying to fix the problems that come from hiring mis-steps. And that time spent trying to motivate, coach and correct behavior will be frustrating, life will be miserable.

Take a sports team and put them up against any other team. To pick the team who will win the game, you only have to know the answer to one simple question.

Who is on the team?

Pick the right players and your life as a manager will be wonderful. Hiring and firing, top of the list.

My apologies to Michael Cardus for immediately using a sports analogy after his post yesterday, Sports Teams are not Work Teams. Quite good. Take a look.

Our 2012 edition of Hiring Talent kicks off today. This online program is now self-paced, on demand. For more information, follow the Sign-Up link.

This didn’t come from the mailbag, just a real conversation.

Question:
We’re glad that you’re here. We have a candidate down the hall. Our interview team has talked to him and everybody likes him. Can you spend a few minutes and see if you like him, too?

Response:
Sounds like an innocent question. But, no. Whether or not I like a candidate, makes no difference in the selection process. If you want to sit down with a role description and determine what capability, what skills, values and behaviors we need in that role, then you and I can have a conversation. Our conversation will help to craft 50-60 questions to ask the candidate.

But, in the end, I am not accountable for the performance of the selected candidate, it’s the hiring manager. I get to go home, the hiring manager is accountable for the output of the team. Part of that accountability is for the selection of team members.

Doesn’t matter if I like the candidate.

“This is not a question of undermining authority. In the end, who will be accountable for the output of the new hire?” I asked.

“That would be the Hiring Manager.”

“So, who will make the final selection out of the candidate pool?”

Rene glanced at the ceiling, “The Hiring Manager.”

“So, you are not undercutting the authority of the Hiring Manager. You are ensuring that a specific process is followed. Your most important contribution has to do with the candidate pool than the final selection. It is your role and the role of the Manager-Once-Removed to create a selection process that ensures the Hiring Manager makes the right decision. While I hold the Hiring Manager accountable for the output of the new hire, I hold the MOR accountable for the output (the decision) of the Hiring Manager.”

Next Monday, January 23 begins the Orientation for our online program Hiring Talent. Follow this link to sign up.