This is next in the series describing Cross-Functional relationships. This is where colleagues work side by side (often on a project basis), neither is the manager of the other. They both may have the same manager or even different managers.

• Monitoring
• Coordinative
• Prescribe
• Collateral
• Audit
• Advisor
• Service Getting

Monitoring Relationship
The Monitoring Relationship is similar to the Audit relationship, except we remove two authorities. The Auditor can delay or stop a project, the Monitor can delay, but cannot stop a project. If there is disagreement, the Monitor can only report to the Manager.

“Robin, we are finally going to start the Brickell Ave Project. As the Project Leader, you know there are some specific guidelines specified by the client that we have to follow in their design. I have assigned Sidney to Monitor those guidelines as an extra pair of eyes for you. Please use Sidney in that capacity.

“Sidney, as the Monitor on this project, it is your responsibility to examine the work as it is being completed to make sure the design guidelines from the client are being followed. If you see something that needs attention, Robin needs to know immediately. You have the authority to delay the work in that vicinity while you are talking to Robin, but Robin makes the decision on whether to proceed or not. If you believe that Robin has made a mistake and you are not able to convince her, Robin’s decision sticks. In that case, I need to know, so I expect an email or a phone call, but Robin’s decision sticks in the field until Robin and I can discuss the situation.”

The Monitor can delay, but cannot stop a project.
___
Our next online program – Hiring Talent is scheduled to kick off August 1, 2011. If you would like to find out more about the program or pre-register, follow this link.

The Service Getting Cross-Functional relationship can initiate a limited number of requests. Defining this authority, up-front, removes ambiguity and clarifies accountability.

• Service Getting
• Coordinative
• Monitoring
• Prescribe
• Collateral
• Audit
• Advisor

“Cheryl, we’re meeting today about the XYZ Project. As you know, Phil is the Project Leader and needs accounting support to track the expense budget on this project. Christine is your manager and we hold her accountable for the work you produce. Christine selected you because of your great work on the Phoenix Project last month. We need that same kind of work for the XYZ Project.”

“Phil, as you work through this project, you will need expense budget tracking. Christine’s accounting department has resources that can support your project needs. As the Project Leader, you will decide exactly what support you need from Christine’s department, and Cheryl has been specifically assigned to your project. So, decide what you need and tell Cheryl.

“Cheryl, you have other task assignments, as well, so when Phil tells you he needs something, make sure he gives you a specific deadline or time-frame, so you can work in the priority. If you have a scheduling conflict you cannot resolve, Christine, your Manager, can help you make the appropriate decision.

“Christine, the XYZ Project is important to us, so if Phil is not getting the support he needs from your department, it is up to you to figure out how to get it done. Cheryl may need more help, may have to work overtime. You know your resources and your own budgets, so we are counting on you to give Phil that support.

“And, Phil, if Cheryl is not giving the support needed, I expect you to work with Christine to make sure the Project gets what it needs.”

Specifically, Jaques defined the Service Getting Cross-Functional relationship –

• Phil has the authority to request a service (ask Cheryl to do something)
• If Phil’s request is not met (falls short, misses deadline, requires more support), he has the authority to talk to Cheryl’s manager.
• Cheryl’s manager, Christine, is ultimately accountable for Cheryl’s work output.

___
Our next online program – Hiring Talent is scheduled to kick off August 1, 2011. If you would like to find out more about the program or pre-register, follow this link.

Cross-Functional Relationships

• Advisor
• Audit
• Coordinative
• Monitoring
• Prescribe
• Service Getting
• Collateral

The Audit Cross-Functional relationship carries a great deal of authority with it. Defining this authority, up-front, removes ambiguity and clarifies accountability.

“Paul, as the Project Leader, you know this project has to conform to strict standards set, not only by our client, but also by state statute.

“Steve, I am assigning you to this project team in an audit role. You have a background in the technical standards required on this project. Here are your authorities.

“If you observe something that violates any of the standards, you are required to inform Paul so he can stop the activity. If Paul fails to stop the activity, you have the authority to stop the project on your own.

“Paul, if Steve says we need to stop the project, understand I am giving him the authority to do so. He will tell you first, but, if you don’t take action, I expect him to. If there is a disagreement, between the two of you about the standard, we are relying on Steve’s technical background to make the judgment to stop or delay. Steve wins. Once the activity is stopped, we can sort out the next step.

“Steve, I expect that, in the event of a disagreement, as the auditor, you will do your best to present the technical details to Paul and make your case for all the reasons why. You will have access to all the work flow data, including progress reports and any work instructions published by Paul.

“And, Steve, I expect to be fully informed of your observations and findings related to the standards we have to maintain on this project.”
___
Our next online program – Hiring Talent is scheduled to kick off August 1, 2011. If you would like to find out more about the program or pre-register, follow this link.

Dotted lines create confusion, not only in the mind of the team member or manager playing a role, but in the minds of all the collateral players. The dotted line is simply short-hand for confusion. It creates ambiguity and kills accountability.

And yet, in the real world, we have cross-functional accountability. Rather than use a dotted line, use a real line and define the accountability. You see, in the real world, we report to people all over the organization, but depending on the cross-functional role, the defined expectations are different.

Elliott Jaques specifically defined seven cross-functional roles and further defined the accountabilities in each. Over the next few days, we will take these roles one-by-one.

Advisor

“Thanks for coming to the meeting today on the ABC project. Paul, Robert, both of you will be working on this project. Paul, you are the Project Leader. The outcome of this project will clearly be your accountability, you, as the manager are accountable for the direct output of your team. This means, all problems that need to be solved, decisions to be made will be on your shoulders.

“Robert, you will be on this team in the role of an advisor. You will bring your technical expertise to the project. You will have access to Paul to explain the technical mechanics of what is happening inside the project.

“Paul, if Robert calls a meeting with you, you can be assured it will contain important data you will need to make some of your decisions.

“Robert, understand, that your role will only be that of an Advisor. All decisions, priorities and the accountability for the project will be on Paul.”

Having an Advisor on a project can be extremely valuable. The role of the Advisor is very clear, as is the role for the Project Leader. No dotted lines, not two people in charge of the same project, but clear accountability.

Tomorrow, we will explore another cross functional relationship from the list.

• Advisor
• Audit
• Coordinative
• Monitoring
• Prescribe
• Service Getting
• Collateral

___
Our next online program – Hiring Talent is scheduled to kick off August 1, 2011. If you would like to find out more about the program or pre-register, follow this link.

Sharon was finally proud of someone else. It took three years since her promotion to let go. Tonight, her lead technician walked across the stage to accept the honor that Sharon had coveted for so long, and it was okay.

The VIP Project had been awarded to Sharon’s department two and a half years ago. Everyone realized this would be a landmark project for company. But there were problems.

Six months in, the difficulties began to bottleneck, the discrepancy reports began to pile up on Sharon’s desk. Working twelve hour days, she could not solve all the problems that rose to the surface. With timeline charts turning from green to red, Sharon was called on the carpet at more than one project-oversight meeting.

It was late on a Friday, somewhat depressed, Sharon came to a realization that changed everything. She had placed herself as the pivot point in the project. She had wanted hands-on control, all spokes led to her. Nothing occurred without her approval and involvement. Why?

Sharon wanted the credit. Sharon wanted to walk across the stage. Sharon wanted to be the hero. Sharon was the problem. It was only when she thought about spreading responsibilities to her team that she emerged from her funk. It was only when she imagined, that one of her team would walk across the stage, instead of her, that she became truly effective as a manager.

Tonight was the night.
___
Our next online program – Hiring Talent is scheduled to kick off August 1, 2011. If you would like to find out more about the program or pre-register, follow this link.

“The reason we called you in,” Derrick explained, “is that we have a margin problem. We’re just not as profitable as we should be.”

“How do you know?” I asked.

“Easy!” he said. “Revenue is up and profit is down.”

“How do you think that happened?”

Derrick took a moment. “We’re a bit stymied. Every time we figure out the problem, and think we have it fixed, at the end of the month, the numbers tell the same story. Revenues up. Profit down.”

“I tell you what I would like to see. Could you get me a copy of your org chart?”

“Our org chart?” Derrick looked at me like I was from Mars. “I said we have a profit problem, why do you want to see our org chart?”

“Derrick, you’ve looked all over, trying to discover what is wrong. Your problem is not a what. Your problem is a who.”

From the Ask Tom Mailbag:

Question:
Can you describe the difference between a Stratum II Supervisor and a Stratum III Manager related to their roles and accountabilities?

Response:
Every company and every business model is different, so there will be small differences when you look inside your own company. But let’s look at some generalizations which you can adapt to your specific situation.

Quite often, I use a manufacturing model as an illustration, because most people can identify with these descriptions.

Stratum I – Production, using equipment, tools and machines. The direct output in this Stratum is typically what your customer experiences as your product or service.

Stratum II – Makes sure production gets done. This role is highly engaged in coordinating all of the elements required for production. This includes the scheduling of Production personnel, materials required and machine time (equipment availability or other resource allocation). This role begins by translating customer demand or work orders into specific output targets for production, managing the pace of that production and counting the direct output to make sure production gets done.

Stratum II is also typically responsible for meeting the quality specification in the production process. This may include internal inspection, making measurements to confirm the product or service meets the standard specified by the customer. Where tolerances are critical, additional quality inspections may be performed by an external team, but the resolution for any discrepancy will likely include the participation of the Stratum II Supervisor.

Finally, Stratum II is also responsible for the maintenance of all internal systems, including preventive maintenance on machines, care and storage of tools, inventory and handling of raw materials and finished goods. The most important internal system is often the people system. It is the role of Stratum II to maintain productive relationships with each team member to promote communication about production problems, quality issues, pacing issues and to gather data about the efficiency of the production system.

Stratum III – Creates the system. It is the role of Stratum III to map out the production work flow, to analyze the sequence of steps, to monitor the effectiveness of the systems, and most importantly to change the system design to promote efficiency, profitability. This role includes the replacement of capital equipment through life cycles, managing budgets related to production, introduction of new technology and training programs.

The success of the role at Stratum III requires close collaboration with the Stratum II supervisor, to gather data (counting output, counting discrepancies etc) related to the current production system, and to implement changes to the system going forward. Stratum II is often the valuable conduit to collect input from the production team related to the workability of specific processes and sequences.

A critical role of the Stratum III manager is in the hiring process. Stratum III is responsible for creating the specific roles in the production team, evaluating the necessity and requirements of those roles. In the hiring of production personnel at Stratum I, Stratum III plays the role of the Manager Once Removed (MOR). This role promotes rich conversations with the Stratum II Supervisor (the Hiring Manager) related to the hiring strategy, protocol and selection.

This short description can be adapted to other business models, using Time Span to calibrate the roles. In some business models, production may occur as a result of teams playing Stratum II, III or IV roles. This will require an adjustment of those roles required to make sure production gets done and roles required to create the systems in which people work.

This conversation was prompted by Wednesday’s post on Where to Start?

“Before you start meddling with the people around you, your team members, your colleagues, you have to figure out your role,” I nodded. “In the midst of your organization, what is your role?”

“I guess I am the designer of the system,” Ruben floated the trial balloon.

“You guess?” I asked.

“I am the designer of the system!”

“And what are your accountabilities, as the designer of the system?”

“As the designer of the system, it is my accountability to make sure that the output of our work is consistent. That our quality meets the standard that we set, every time,” Ruben explained, gaining more confidence.

“And what is the value to the organization, to create that consistency?”

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
What do you do when you have a team member with an over-inflated ego. This person does NOT have the capability to work at a higher level. Yet, because they have been here a long time, they think they should be given a promotion and the compensation that comes with it. They are already overpaid in their current role.

Response:
This is where titles and compensation get all mixed up with egos and status. The one thing that gets left out in the cold is the WORK. In most cases, I could care less about the title in the role, I care more about the WORK.

Whenever I am approached about promotions, raises, change of title, my first response is, “Fine, let’s talk about the WORK.”

What you describe is not an isolated incident, but a systemic problem where your organization has had no calibration to determine the level of work (capability) required in its roles. Compensation gets out of hand, people receive raises and title changes based on time served (like we are running a prison).

So, the answer to your question is not a specific technique to resolve this specific situation with this specific person. This is a systemic solution which requires the organization to continually define the WORK, the capability required to complete the work, and to assess the effectiveness of the people we have in those roles, doing the WORK.

This assessment, the Personal Effectiveness Appraisal, continually calibrates, over time where the person is, in relationship to the WORK. This is a simple assessment, a required managerial leadership practice. It asks these questions.

1. Is this person working satisfactorily in the role?
2. In that role, is the person working as effectively as someone in the top half of the role or the bottom half of the role?
3. And in that half, is the person working as effectively as someone in the bottom, middle or top of the role?

This simple calibration, discussing the work and effectiveness, helps everyone – the team member, the manager and the manager once removed (MOR) to have helpful discussions about appropriate task assignments where team members are working at (at least near) their maximum capability.

When used over time, with all roles, the organization creates higher levels of trust by engaging in productive conversations about the work (in roles) and effectiveness. This prevents a lot of nonsense where team members have inappropriate (miscalibrated) understandings of their own capability related to task assignments.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I was in your Time Span workshop last week. Fascinating. Where do we start? What are the first moves that we make?

Response:
The first moves are always with yourself. Elliott’s intention was that Requisite Organization be a comprehensive organization-wide managerial system. And the first moves are always with yourself.

Organize Around the Work
Define the roles that are necessary. The first missteps an organization makes, is to focus on the capability of their people. Before you examine that capability, you must know what capability is necessary in the roles. It’s like MBWA. Before you do all that walking around, it would be a good idea to know what you are looking for.

Defining roles is fundamental managerial work that most would like to skip, and that is where it starts. What is the work that is necessary?

Only after you have defined the market need and determined a viable product or service, where there is enough value that the customer is willing to pay for, that we can profitably produce, with enough volume to create an organization, we can begin.

Organize Around the Work
What is the work that is necessary? What is the direct output of our production teams that creates the product or service that our customer experiences?

Organize Around the Work
With our production teams, how do we maintain the pace of that production to meet market requirements (sales orders)? What are the roles necessary to coordinate all the materials, machinery, equipment and people at the right time, to create our product or service? How do we maintain the quality standards demanded (necessary) by the market? How do we count what we produced, overproduced, underproduced to make sure production got done?

Organize Around the Work
As your volume builds, things begin to happen, problems crop up. Over and over. Some of the new work has less to do with production and more to do with operations, operational work. With some analysis, we begin to systematize the work with an eye to operational efficiencies and profitability. What analytic work is necessary? What systems need to be constructed and monitored? How do our systems prevent problems? How do we change our systems to accommodate new problems?

This is where you start, by looking at the roles in the organization. Organize around the work.