Category Archives: Accountability

Culture Trumps

Leave a reply

“But, I set the context for my team. We talked about the work we would receive from the process step before. We talked about how we would inspect our work before we handed it off to the next process step. I thought I was very clear,” Rory complained.

“So, what happened?” I asked.

“It’s like the team wasn’t listening,” he replied. “I even had them repeat the steps back to me, to make sure I was understood.”

“So, what happened?” I repeated. “Why did you feel the need to be so explicit? Why the need for clarity?”

“We’ve had quality problems out of this team, seems like, forever. They don’t seem to care. They come to work, go through the motions. End of day, they head home. That’s why I was called in to manage this team.”

“So, what was different, after you explained the sequence, described the context for their work?” I probed.

“Nothing changed. We had the same incidence of quality re-works. Almost like shoddy work is part of the team culture.”

“So, what you are telling me is that culture trumps clear work instructions?”

Nobody Dies

Leave a reply

“I don’t know why my team is behaving this way,” Riley complained. “I know we drive our people hard, and I know we expect a lot from them, but they knew that when they signed up for the job. We are a very intense organization.”

“How are they behaving?” I wanted to know.

“You can see them dragging into a meeting. Smiles are few and far between. It’s like they need a vacation really bad. Bordering on burn-out. I know we expect them to be responsive on their smart-phones, even after hours, but we are in the service business. We don’t know when our customers are going to call, or some project is going to go sideways.”

“So, in addition to working a normal day-shift, they are on-call after hours?”

Riley nodded. “Yes, but they get on-call pay, even if nothing happens. And we rotate that, so it’s not like it’s every day.”

“So, what is causing the fatigue,” I asked.

“I don’t know. It’s just that we are intense. If we relax, details get missed. And, missed details can turn into real problems. We have to keep our guard up.”

“And, if you keep your guard up and no details are missed, what happens?”

Riley had to stop and think. “Nothing special. Things go smooth, no one panics, but it’s not like we win the Super Bowl.”

“When your team does a really good job, it’s nothing special. So, who appreciates it, when they do a really good job?”

“No one really,” Riley admitted. “A really good job just means that no one is upset, mostly the customer.”

“Kind of like running a nuclear power plant,” I said. “If we do our job well, everyone gets electricity, the reactor doesn’t melt down and nobody dies.”

Clear as Mud

Leave a reply

“Most of the time, your team members will do exactly what is expected of them, if they could just figure out, what that is,” I explained.  “When you observe underperformance, look for the cause.  It is usually in one of these five areas.”

  • Make the expectation (of output) clear.
  • Ensure the availability of required resources.
  • Validate the required skills and sufficient practice for the task.
  • Match the persons capability with the capability required for the task (measured in time span).
  • Ensure the person places a high value on the work (interest or passion for the work).
  • Ensure the person engages in reasonable behaviors required to complete the task.

“But I told my assistant that I needed the report ASAP,” Carolyn objected.  “When I went to find out the status, I found out the report had not even been started.”

“Let’s work through the list.  The expectations were clear to you, but were they clear to the team member?  What does ASAP mean?  You needed the report for the meeting on Friday, so ASAP could mean – as soon as possible before Friday.

“When I look at expectations, clarity of expectations, I think QQTR.  Quantity-Quality-Time-Resources.  If I miss any of these elements, then the expectation is not clear.”

  • What is the quantity of the output?
  • What is the quality standard (so I know what to count and what not to count)?
  • What is the time deadline, specifically, date and time?
  • What resources are available, or not available?

QQTR

Three Moving Parts

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I hear you say that management is about setting context. I think I understand what that means, but I do NOT understand how to do it.

Response:
Culture is context. Setting context is the prime objective for every manager. Context is the environment in which work is done. Work is making decisions and solving problems. This is fundamental managerial work. Three moving parts –

  • Communicate the Vision. This is the future picture of a project, picture of a product in a package, the output from a service. This is what a clean carpet looks like.
  • Performance Standard. This is the what, by when. This is the objective in measurable terms. This is the goal – QQTR, quantity, quality, time (deadline or evaluation period), resources. The vision is full of excitement and enthusiasm, specifically defined by the performance standard.
  • Constraints. There are always constraints and guidelines. Budget is a constraint, access to resources is a constraint, time can be a constraint. These are the lines on the field. Safety issues are always a constraint. When the project is finished, you should go home with all your fingers and toes.

That’s it, then let the team loose to solve the problems and make the decisions within the context. Do not make this more complicated. It’s always about the fundamentals.

Fix Accountability

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
You seem to think that when the manager is held accountable for the output of the team, it’s a game-changer. You seem to think this one idea has a significant impact on morale.

Response:
Mindset drives behavior. This is a central premise to culture. What we believe, the way we see the world, drives behavior.

When a manager believes the team is accountable for their own output, it creates a punitive, blaming mindset on the part of the manager. I often hear the refrain from one manager to another, “Well, did you hold them accountable?”

And I have to ask, “Accountable for what? And just what managerial behavior is involved in holding them accountable?”

Is it a matter of reprimand, jumping up and down and screaming? Is it a matter of volume, frequency? If I told you once, I told you a thousand times. At that point, I am convinced that I am talking to a manager who has no children.

Managers who engage in this behavior have a direct negative impact on team morale. Response is predictably fight, flight, freeze or appease.

But, when the manager is accountable for the output of the team, everything changes. A manager accountable for the output of the team will –

  • Take extreme care in the selection of who? is assigned to the project.
  • Will take extreme care in the training of team members assigned to the project.
  • Will take extreme care in the work instructions for the project.
  • Will take care to monitor the progress of work on the project.
  • Will take care in the coaching of team members who may struggle in connection with the project.

Why? Because the manager is accountable for the output of the team. The attitude, the mindset, moves the manager from blaming behavior to caring behavior. If this becomes the mindset of all the managers, the entire organization’s culture changes. We don’t need sensitivity training, or communication seminars. We just need to fix accountability with the manager.

Does the Feeling Create the Structure?

Leave a reply

“So, you want your team to feel like a family, at least an extended family?” I asked.

Andre was thoughtful. “You have heard the expression, familiarity breeds contempt? That is the behavior I see. Petty grievances. Subtle discord. You would think that, as a family, they would get along better and, in turn, be more productive. I want them to work together, collaborate, support each other, you know, real teamwork.”

“All, noble ideas. But, could there be a paradox? Could it be, that effective group collaboration, teamwork, does not stem from a feeling of family, but rather a clear recognition of individual team members, each with individual accountability in clearly defined working relationships? Could it be structure that creates the feeling, not the feeling that creates the structure?”

It’s Family Feeling

Leave a reply

“The biggest problem I have,” Andre complained, “is getting my people to work together. I want them to be like a family. I want them to feel like they belong to a tribe, you know, an extended family.”

“Oh, really,” I looked surprised. “It is a noble feeling to impart to a group of people, to get them to feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. So, what seems to be the problem in getting them to work together?”

“There always seems to be petty bickering between the personalities. It’s not overt passive-aggressive behavior, but the conversations that end up in my office are petty transgressions. Someone borrowed a stapler and didn’t return it. Someone took a snack out of the company refrigerator. Someone had a bright idea that the group ignored or made fun of. Someone got passed over on a new project. Someone got passed over for a promotion.”

“So, what do you think the problem is?” I asked.

“I think it’s the culture of the group,” Andre nodded.

“And, who sets the culture?” I prompted.

“Ultimately, I set the culture,” he thought out loud. “Funny, I want the group to feel like a family, an extended family, but I end up with sibling rivalry.”

Not Our Intent, But It’s What Happens

Leave a reply

Helen’s face dropped. Her smile disappeared.

“Sounds like manipulation,” I said.

“But, but, what do you mean?” she gasped, not in desperation, but surprise.

“I mean, most of the things we do, as managers, fall in line with manipulation. We create expectations of performance, we get the performance, the team member gets a reward. Or more clearly, we create expectations, if we don’t get the performance, the team member gets reprimanded. Either way you look at it, most of what we do as managers, is manipulation.”

Invisible Conflict

Leave a reply

There was no ticker-tape parade. It was much too early to celebrate. In May of 1998, Wall Street celebrated one of the largest corporate mergers in history. Daimler-Benz, the maker of Mercedes-Benz automobiles, and Chrysler Corporation announced a “merger of equals.” The combined company was valued at more than $36 billion, and analysts predicted more than $1 billion in bottom line value creation. It looked like the perfect strategic fit.

Chrysler brought strong North American distribution, a line-up of mini-vans, Jeep models and light trucks. Daimler brought German engineering in a luxury brand. Each company had a successful culture that sparked a conflict of invisible disagreement. Each had its own unwritten set of rules that were about to collide.

At Mercedes, precision mattered. Decisions were deliberate, carefully documented and followed a formal process. Chrysler built its success on speed. Cross-functional teams solved problems quickly and products cycled to market faster.

Neither company was wrong in its own world, they were just wrong together. The merger failed. It wasn’t engineering. It wasn’t manufacturing. It wasn’t finance. It was the belief system held by each respective management team.

The breakup was a war of attrition, not a visible conflict. Meetings became longer. Decison making slowed. Impatient Chrysler executives left. The power dynamic shifted. To many Chrysler executives, the merger of equals increasingly felt like a takeover.   The individual belief systems could not exist in the same container.

After paying $36B to acquire, Daimler made the decision in 2007 to sell 80 percent of Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management for $7.4B. Chrysler was eventually purchased out of bankruptcy by Fiat and is now part of Stellantis North America.

The most interesting question isn’t why the merger failed.  The question is “What did Daimler have to believe for its management system to make perfect sense?”  And, “what did Chrysler have to believe for its management system to make perfect sense?” Financial models are remarkably good at estimating purchasing efficiencies, manufacturing savings, and economies of scale. They are much less effective at estimating what happens when two organizations bring fundamentally different beliefs about authority, decision making, accountability, and risk into the same conference room.

Culture isn’t an employee engagement survey. It isn’t a list of values framed in the lobby. Culture is the collection of management decisions that become so consistent they eventually define “the way we do things around here.”

The Daimler-Chrysler merger wasn’t undone by incompatible automobiles. It was undone by incompatible beliefs.
—
Premeditated Culture is now available on Amazon.

Just One Thing

Leave a reply

“But, if Herb Kellerher’s mindset was the difference in Southwest’s success, the open seating, the free bags, why did Southwest abandon those things?” Christopher pushed back.

“What makes you think they abandoned them?” I asked.

“Now, they have assigned seating, they charge for bags,” he paused. “They are starting to look like every other airline.”

“Those are behaviors,” I nodded. “What do behaviors usually tell us?”

“That something underneath has changed,” Christopher said.

“You know, your question may be more interesting than the answer,” I replied. “Let’s look at your question. You observed the system that created Southwest and now you see it has abandoned those very things. You traced their success to a mindset, to a belief about Southwest’s place in the airline industry, more specifically about their place in the transportation industry. What change must have occurred in the mindset of Southwest, specifically the current board of directors to cause them to abandon their historic operational differences?”

“Did they start losing money?” Christopher wanted to know.

“You’re a smart guy, with a phone. Look it up,” I instructed.

Christopher was a smart guy and thirty seconds later had his answer. “They lost money during COVID, but so did everyone else.”

“And then?” I prompted.

“And then they made money. And the year after, and the year after, they made money every year.”

“So, they weren’t going bankrupt?” I assured him. “What management beliefs produce almost 47 consecutive years of net profit where every other airline is subject to down cycles?”

Christopher sat with the question. “I can’t see the beliefs,” he said. “All I can see are the pieces of a coherent system. One type of aircraft, fast gate turns, secondary airports, low fares, free bags, open seating. Every one of those things fits together.”

“And what happens when you change just one thing?” I asked.

Christopher didn’t hesitate. “It doesn’t just change one thing.”