Category Archives: Accountability

Two Masters

“And what else?” I asked.

“That the problems I observed did not come from the idiosyncrasies of the people involved, but from the systems that I created as the Manager,” Alicia replied.

“Like?”

“Like assigning a project team with two leaders, giving neither the authority to make a decision that would conflict with the other. I thought there was a personality conflict, when it was my system drawing out the behavior. If you want to make people really schizophrenic, assign them to report to two different masters.”

Authority and Accountability

The room was empty except for the two of us. I turned to Alicia, “See it wasn’t that bad. How upside down was your stomach?”

“You know, in the beginning,” she started. “I was afraid that things would get out of control and create more of a problem. But, as the meeting continued, I finally realized that the very things that could blow my team apart were the same things that could weld it together.”

“What else did you learn?” I asked.

“I realized that I have to stop coddling people. My team doesn’t need coddling, they need leadership. And part of that leadership is that I am accountable for the results of the team.

“I am the one in position to know all of the changing circumstances reported by the individual team members. I am the only one with the authority to select and deselect team members. I am the only one with the authority to make or change task assignments. Most importantly, I am the one accountable for those decisions.”

Fixing Accountability

“Have you abdicated your responsibility, as a Manager, to a watered down decision making protocol called consensus, in an effort to appease everyone and get everyone to play nice?” I repeated.

“That’s not a fair question,” Alicia protested.

I smiled. “You are right, it’s loaded with assumption and exaggeration, but it makes a point. Who, on this team should be making critical decisions about the Phoenix Project? Critical decisions based on the excellent engineering recommendations from Russ’ department, and based on the realities of production confronted by Corey and his team?”

“But I wanted to empower the team. I wanted to get buy-in,” Alicia protested, sitting at the head of the table, each team member listening intently.

“Alicia, this team is empowered to do what they do best. This team has bought in. There is a ton of commitment around this table. What they need is a decision.

There was silence.

Paula raised her hand. “You know, this meeting has always been called the Project team meeting. Maybe it should be called the Division Manager’s Meeting?”

Alicia had not been promoted to Division Manager because she was slow. I nodded to her. My work was done. It was Alicia’s turn.

“Tomorrow morning, we will convene the Division Manager’s Meeting. We have a very important decision to make about the Phoenix Project. The meeting will last for 60 minutes, during which time I will listen to presentations, arguments and discussion about this decision. At the end of the meeting, I will make a decision as to the direction. Based on my decision, it will be up to each of you to carry on, giving it your best.

“As conditions change, we will meet each week to discuss new critical issues. I expect each of you to handle the details. We will only talk about difficult decisions.

“Thank you all for your attention and participation in this meeting. Let’s get back to work.”

Abdicating Responsibility

All eyes settled on Alicia. “Alicia, tell me again, what you believe your role is as Division Manager on the Phoenix Project?”

I had asked this question before and I could tell Alicia had practiced the answer. “My role is to put the team together, assign the leadership, make sure there is consensus and that the project stays on track.”

“And what is the name of this meeting?” I continued.

“Well, this is the Project Team meeting,” she replied.

“And do you attend these meetings?”

“Yes, at the end of the day, I am responsible for the Phoenix Project.”

“And, as the Division Manager, have you abdicated your responsibility, as a manager, to a watered down decision making protocol called consensus, in an effort to appease everyone and get everyone to play nice?”

I think I detected a bit more shifting in the chairs as this meeting was getting closer to the truth.

Who Should Make the Decision?

Paula, one of the team members from administration, raised her hand. “It seems to me that no one can make a decision around here. Russ has his engineering agenda, and it’s important, but if we don’t get the project done on time, that’s a problem, too.”

“Paula, do you think Russ should fight less hard for project specifications that he believes in?” I asked.

Paula shook her head, “No.”

“And do you think Russ should fight less hard to keep the project on track?”

Paula continued to move her head from side to side.

“So, who should make the decision?” I watched each team member look down and then look at Alicia, the Division Manager.

Not a Personality Conflict

Russ made his point, that the contract called for certain technical specifications, and also declared his bias, that his bonus was based on the absence of litigation related to project specifications. So I turned to Corey.

“Corey, the team gets confused when they get conflicting direction from both you and Russ. Russ stated a good case that we have to stick to the specs. How do you respond?”

Corey’s face was terse. “It is my responsibility to make sure this project stays on track and on schedule. Sometimes we have to make a change to prevent delays. If we don’t make our schedule, we take it on the chin with a delay claim. By the way, I get a bonus at the end of the year when we have zero delay claims against us.”

I looked at both Russ and Corey, then at Alicia, then at the team.

“So, we have conflict here. This conflict was first described to me as a personality conflict,” I began. “But, this does not look like a personality conflict to me.” I looked straight at the team, one by one. “So, what is the problem, here?”

Taking It on the Chin

Joe explained it well. The contract with his crew was to do their best. If goals weren’t met, the accountability for the shortfall must go to their leaders. It is only the leader who is in a position to make the decisions that determine success or failure.

So, I turned back to Alicia, the Division Manager, and to both Russ and Corey, the project leaders.

“So, Russ, you represent the engineering department, how do you respond?”

Russ had been quietly turning a brighter shade of red, and it wasn’t from embarrassment. “Look, it is my job to make sure that the technical requirements of the customer are met. If we make any material changes to the specifications and there is a component failure, we will take it on the chin in a lawsuit. By the way, I get a bonus at the end of every year that we are not involved in litigation.”

Accountability for Results

“Tell me more, Joe. When you are given conflicting direction from Russ and Corey, how does that impact your driver crew?” I asked.

“First of all, I have a great crew, dedicated and very serious when the going gets tough. They know, at the end of this project, based on delays, there is going to be hell to pay. They know the excuses will fly and part of the blame will land on logistics.

“They also know,” Joe continued, “that, during the project, they have no control over priorities and sequence. They make recommendations, but they are not in a position to know the overall impact or changes in scope or changes in schedule. They are only in a position to move our heavy equipment as instructed.

“I keep it pretty simple. My only contract with them is that they do their best. And if, at the end of the day, the goals aren’t met, then the accountability for the shortfall must be with the leadership. It is leadership that determines the schedule, sets the pace, allocates the resources and makes the decisions that determine the outcome.”

Crippling the Team

“I cannot believe the way people are responding to this situation,” Lydia explained. “They know the right thing to do, but they are all wimps, now that they have to stand up for it.”

“What is your position?” I asked.

“To do the right thing. I laid out the steps we need to take, who we need to contact and how we need to present the facts. I know it’s unpopular, but it’s the right thing to do.”

“How are you going to persuade the team to take the right action?”

“I’m the leader, so I could just force the issue, take the steps on my own,” she replied.

“And what kind of leadership is that?”

Lydia thought, grinned, then slowly nodded. “That would be tyrannical leadership, I suppose.”

“And if you are a tyrant and force it, then you let the team off the hook. They are no longer responsible for taking action. You cripple them from being responsible in the future.” -TF

Perfectly Plausible

Pre-registration for our Working Leadership Online program has ended. Open registration begins next Monday. Details.
__
Brett was somewhat disturbed with my observations about his dilemma.

“I don’t think you are being fair,” he said. “You know the market is tight and you know we are out there doing our best to drum up sales.”

“Do you have a competitor that is already out of business?” I asked.

“Not one, we lost three competitors almost nine months ago. The market wasn’t even nearly as tight as it is now. They just couldn’t sustain it.”

“If you ran into one of them in the grocery store and asked them why they went out, what would they say?”

“Well, they would blame it on the market,” Brett replied.

“Yes. And everyone would believe them and feel some empathy for them. It is a perfectly plausible excuse. Your former competitors chose to live with the problem, and whine and complain about it, rather than make the changes necessary to get a different result.” -TF