Category Archives: Accountability

MOR on the Hook

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
We are a small organization and most of our production work is technical, defined at Stratum III. Because we are small, and I am the Hiring Manager, in a Stratum IV role, not sure how to implement the Manager-Once-Removed (MOR) in the hiring process?

Response:
The Manager Once Removed in the hiring process is a critical role.

  • Brings perspective and experience to defining the requirements of the role.
  • Truly understands the Level of Work required for success in the role.
  • Will not allow unqualified candidates into the process.
  • Will not allow the Hiring Manager to short-cut elements of the hiring process.
  • Is accountable for the quality of the hiring decision of the Hiring Manager.

Most MORs don’t take this accountability seriously, but this accountability is dead serious. I hold the MOR accountable for the quality of the decision of the Hiring Manager. This changes a number of things. The MOR is ON the hook.

But, where the Hiring Manager is playing a role in the highest layer of the company, who is the Manager Once Removed?

It’s not an insider, look around, there isn’t anyone. In this case, the answer is outside.

Every player needs a coach, including the person playing the role at the top. It’s either a mentor or most likely, a peer group. Most readers are somehow connected to a peer group organization called Vistage/TEC, when I present workshops to those groups, I say “Look to your right, look to your left, the MOR is sitting in this room.”

The dynamic is different. Outsiders cannot be held accountable for decisions made on the inside. But if there is NO ONE in the role on the inside, my next move is to personal mentor or peer group.

Getting By and Paying the Price

Leave a reply

“I know we are missing a couple of Managers,” admitted Derrick. “We intentionally allowed these positions to be open. We thought we could get by, save some salaries. We thought other people could cover for a short time.”

“And now you are paying the price,” I responded.

“I guess we thought our systems were solid,” Derrick hopefully floated.

“Perhaps they were, but things change. Your systems have to be constantly monitored, constantly tweaked. Other people can cover some of the daily work in your manager roles, but they are not going to look at your systems. Not only did you lose the predictability of your momentum, but glitches in your system cost you backtracking to re-locate the source of the problem. That’s why you felt, at times, that you were playing Whack-a-mole.”

“So, what’s the next step?” asked Derrick.

“Two-fold. You have to keep a handle on the Whack-a-mole and you also need to find a new manager.”

Problem Fixed, System Broken

Leave a reply

“You have two out of five manager positions in place on a daily basis, so when you have a problem, you fix the problem, but not the system,” I offered.

“So, the problem is fixed,” Derrick insisted.

“Yes, the problem is fixed, but the system is still broken. You are missing three of five Managers, so you are not paying proper attention to your systems.

“You see, Derrick, when you have a problem, everyone scrambles to fix the problem. Even experienced Managers put on their superhero cape and leap in front of their biggest customer to save the day.

“What your managers need to focus on,” I continued, “is the system. Why didn’t the system prevent that problem? Or at least mitigate the damage from the problem? Their role is to fix the system.”

The Forbidden Managerial Relationship?

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I attended one of your workshops last year and your email is my daily dose of wisdom. Is it the job of the Manager-Once-Removed to step in when he sees an employee’s manager making a mistake. Should the employee be able to go to the Manager-Once-Removed if they believe that their manager is incorrect?

Response:
Many companies are so afraid of undermining authority, that they forbid contact between the Manager-Once-Removed (MOR) and team members two strata below. This is actually a necessary managerial relationship. But it’s different.

Let’s tackle the first issue, this undermining authority business. The problem is in the way we frame our assumption. We assume the team member is accountable for their output under the authority of the Manager.

Stop. We missed where the accountability lies.

It is the Manager who is accountable for the output of the team member.

So, while the work of the Manager is to create work instructions for team members, it is also the work of the Manager to ensure those work instructions will be effective in reaching the goal, the task objective. It is imperative for the Manager to constantly ask questions, of the team members, about the effectiveness of the work instructions. It’s part of the role.

This same accountability works one strata above, as well. Who do I hold accountable for the Manager doing a good job of creating and testing work instructions? That would be the Manager-Once-Removed. So, it is incumbent on the MOR to visit the Manager, review work instructions, ask about the effectiveness of the work instructions in the reality of production.

It is also incumbent on the MOR to visit the production area and ask questions, because I hold the MOR accountable for the effectiveness of the Manager.

It is the role of both the MOR and Manager to bring value to the work, decision making and problem solving, of each team member. They are both accountable for the direct output of those team members one stratum below. This is done most effectively by asking questions and listening.

It’s Not a Gamble

Leave a reply

Greetings from San Jose. I would like to welcome our new subscribers from Sacramento.

“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.”

Undermining Authority of the Hiring Manager

Leave a reply

“But I don’t want to undermine the authority of the Hiring Manager,” Rene repeated.

“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.

Lost In Translation

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your Time Span workshop, you talk about the breakdowns in communication that can occur when a manager skips a layer, for example a Stratum IV manager working with a Stratum II supervisor. How can you tell when you have a lost-in-translation issue?

Response:
Communication breakdowns can occur for many reasons. Elliott Jaques, in his Time Span research often found, that problems we attribute to communication breakdowns or personality issues, turn out to be a misalignment in organizational structure.

A Stratum IV manager and a Stratum II supervisor are typically working on goals with markedly different Time Spans. Even looking at the same problem, their analysis will be different. The Stratum II supervisor may piece some of the elements together while the Stratum IV manager looks to see how this problem impacts other related systems down the road. Indeed, they may describe the problem using different words (terminology).


The S-II supervisor may wonder what the S-IV manager is talking about while the S-IV manager wonders why the S-II supervisor cannot see what is altogether clear. They use different words and see the world in different ways, creating that lost-in-translation syndrome.

But, your question was, how can you tell if this is Lost-in-translation? More importantly, how can we recognize the difficulty and what steps can we take to prevent it or cure it?

Underperformance of any kind indicates a problem. Any time performance does not meet expectation, there are three places to immediately look.

  • Is it a problem with the performance?
  • Is it a defect in the expectation?
  • Is there a problem with the communication of the expectation?

If it’s a problem with the communication, then lost-in-translation could be the culprit. And the accountability lies with the manager. It is (always) the manager who I hold accountable for the output of the team member.

What needs to change? What managerial behavior needs to change? I see two steps.

  1. The manager should recognize the time span framework of the team member. Here is a quick set of diagnostic questions – “What is the task? When should this task be completed?” The response from the team member is a clear indication of the Time Span the team member has in mind. This Time Span is impacting every decision surrounding this project. The adjustment for the manager is to speak in terms of the other person.
  2. The manager should examine the language (words) being used to make sure the meaning of the words is common and clear. During a task assignment, I will often ask the team member to take written notes and feed back to me their understanding of the work instruction. In there is confusion, it can generally identified in this step.

It is the manager I hold accountable. The manager is 100 percent responsible for the communication in this lost-in-translation issue.

It’s Not About Flow and Luck

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your workshop, it was clear, the research you presented supports hierarchy in an organization. I am still not sure I buy that. There is so much talk these days about “tribes” as a better, more flexible structure.

Response:
Notwithstanding how great Mel Gibson looked in his Mayan costume in Apocalypto, all the talk of modern tribal systems is misguided.

One reason is the misunderstanding of the purpose for hierarchy. We think, because we watch too many military movies, we think hierarchy exists to create a reporting protocol in the organization. Here’s the bad news, you are NOT a manager so people can report to you.

The fact is, we report to people all over the organization. I contribute to a project for Paul. I am responsible to compile a forecast for a report for Frank. I have to procure some super-special material on a project for Bill. I sit in on a steering committee for Jim. I report to people all over the organization. There is no lack of flexibility. It might even have the appearance of a tribe.

But even in a tribal structure, every once in a while, like every day, I will run up against a problem or a decision where I need some help. I may have a conflict priority between Bill’s project and Frank’s project. Who do I go to for help? If I go to Bill or Frank, I may get the wrong answer. So who is accountable for that decision. In a tribal system, no one is accountable. There is ambiguity. And ambiguity kills accountability.

A tribal system is great, unless we are trying to get some work done.

The purpose of the managerial relationship, the mandate for every manager, is to bring value to the problem solving and decision making of the team member. And that’s the purpose for hierarchy, to fix accountability at the appropriate decision level. The right decision on the conflict between Bill’s project and Frank’s project may require perspective on BOTH projects, as well as capital budgets, multiple customer initiatives and the availability of technical support. If I don’t have that perspective (to make the right decision), then who?

In a tribe, there is no one accountable for that perspective? It’s all about flow and luck.

In a hierarchy, it is my manager who is accountable. I may report to people all over the organization, but there is only one person accountable for my output, and that is my manager.

The Noble Sound of a Bonus

Leave a reply

“And what else?” I asked.

“This is a tough one,” she started. “Our bonus system. I think our bonus system is causing some of the problems.”

“How so?”

“Well, we wanted to make sure we didn’t get into lawsuits based on construction defects, so we pay a bonus to our engineering manager when we have zero claims. It sounds noble, but that sets up someone to over-work against our operations manager, who is just trying to get the job done.

“To make matters worse, we diligently work the project schedules to avoid delay claims. Delay claims can do more than suck the profit out of a job. So we pay a bonus to our operations manager when we have zero delay claims.

“So, now I have two people on the same team who are working against each other.”

“What else?”

Alicia began with a blank stare, then a hint of something in her mind. “I think,” she replied, “the worst part about our bonus system is that it creates mistrust.”

So, I Get A Pass?

Leave a reply

“So, I get a pass based on circumstances outside of my control?” Lisa ventured.

“Not so fast,” I replied. “Were there trends you should have examined in guiding your team to the goal? Should you have taken into account, a likely event that could have gone either way? The politics of an external decision? A shipment delayed? A key team member getting sick? A supplier unable to deliver? Did you create alternate paths to the goal?”