Category Archives: Accountability

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?”

But, We Are Results Based!

1 Reply

“But we are a RESULTS-based-performance company,” Lisa pushed back.

“Does that mean you get a trophy because your team made goal in spite of your managerial incompetence?” I asked. Then smiled. “Just kidding.”

I could see the blood return to Lisa’s face.

“A plan, or a goal is simply a proclamation of your intention,” I continued. “No one knows, for certain, if that goal will, in fact, be achieved. The only measure of performance is performance. While the end result is certainly a metric, it is your effectiveness that I will watch.”

“Not sure I understand,” Lisa replied.

“Sometimes, not often, but sometimes, we achieve a result through no good efforts of our own. We are carried to the goal by momentum, or luck, positioned just right in the flow by random fate. Can I judge your effectiveness, positive or negative based on the fact of the result, or should I more properly examine the moves you made?”

Odd, Lisa was still listening.

“More often, the opposite happens. We have intentions to make our numbers, but the environment turns hostile, we fight with the alligators and do our best to make lemonade. Can I judge your effectiveness, positive or negative based on the fact of the result, or should I more properly examine the moves you made?”

Alternate Paths

Leave a reply

I trust each of you had an enjoyable Thanksgiving, ate way too much dessert and are now fully satiated and ready to get back to work.

I am currently working with an online class, its latest focus on the planning process. It is that time of year, where all things turn to goals and objectives for the coming year, thinking that we will outdo ourselves in that optimistic quest.

And yet, if don’t achieve those (sometimes) elusive goals, we likely blame a variety of factors outside of our control, thinking, how could we possibly be held accountable for those external elements?

Here are my assumptions –

  • I assume that you will do your best.
  • I assume, that, in doing your best, you will study those external factors outside of your control, to determine what influence that might have on your accomplishments.
  • I assume that you will create alternate paths, contingencies to be adjusted when those external forces exert their influence.

At the end of the day (year) I will not judge you on your results. I will judge you on your effectiveness. This means, no excuses, for circumstances outside of your control. How will you effectively anticipate and plan for those inevitable contingencies?

The Question Behind the Question

3 Replies

“You’ve seen my workload,” Rene complained. “I have a ton of management issues I am dealing with. As Vice President of this division, I have a lot on my plate.”

“And one of the things on your plate is the hiring of a new supervisor in one of your production departments,” I replied.

“Yes, but don’t hang that one on me. I have a manager in that department. It’s his responsibility to make the hire. The less I get involved the better,” Rene resisted.

“Tell me, Rene, why is that supervisor role open, anyway?”

She saw the question behind the question, and smiled. “You know the last person didn’t work out, and yes, I stayed out of that hiring decision, too.”

“And, in your role as VP, as the manager of the person who made the poor hiring decision, who do I hold accountable?” I asked.

“Well, I guess, since you are sitting in my office, that would be me.”

Placing Accountability

4 Replies

From the Ask Tom Mailbag:

Question:
I have an IT person, very skilled in technology, but seemingly unable to look beyond next week. He is brilliant at solving network issues, working around this problem and solving that issue. But his backlog of projects is growing. It appears he is unable to prioritize or track progress on any project longer than one or two days. We have temporarily assigned him to report to one of our senior managers, she’s very organized, to try to keep him focused. Together, they have created tracking spreadsheets, and meet once a week to update the status on projects. But the more time goes by, the more out of control things get. The value we deliver to our clients depends on our technology, so this truly has my attention.

Response:
If this role was simply to keep your computer network afloat, wouldn’t be a big deal, but you describe this as mission critical. You describe requirements for two distinct roles. One role is technical, directly performing task assignments (direct output), and one role making decisions about priorities, sequence and allocation of resources. You might find both in the same person (if you had the budget), but that is not the case. You have two individuals, which you describe as competent.

Here’s the rub. Who is the manager of the IT person. Like many companies, computers and their networks are so mystical that IT personnel are allowed to roam free, with only vague accountability. The evidence of vague accountability, is that they often have no appropriate manager.

You described that you have a senior manager available, AND you will have to determine their interest in being the manager of the IT person, but here is the difference. Your move is to shift accountability to this senior manager. It is not a matter of the IT person reporting to this senior manager, but this senior manager being accountable for the direct output of the IT person.

This subtle shift in accountability makes all the difference. You see, I don’t know if they need to meet once a week or twice a day. That’s not my decision. That is a decision for the senior manager. And the senior manager will only make the right decision with the understanding that she is accountable for the output of the IT person. This is a game changer.

Prescribed Duties and Discretionary Decisions

Leave a reply

“Do you, as the Manager, sit with your team and talk about the decisions they have to make as they collect this data?” I asked.

“Well, we go over how to fill out the form. We have training every month on changes to the form or changes in the way it is processed,” Arlene replied.

“Have you ever had a team member follow all the instructions, complete every box on the form, but at the end of the day, there were problems?”

Arlene started laughing, nodding her head. “Oh, yes!” she blurted. “We had this one guy, we had to let him go, finally. And it was difficult, because he did everything he was supposed to, but he was such a mess, disorganized. It was all last-minute with him. I mean, he would get the filings in just under the wire, but the underwriter, who had to approve the paperwork was always kicking it back. In the end, the customer would not be approved and they would be mad at us. But remember, all we do is the paperwork, we don’t approve the underwriting.”

“That’s not true,” I countered. “You could tell the difference between poor performance and good performance with this guy. As his manager, when did you know you had a problem?”

“Oh, it was the first week. You could just tell,” Arlene explained.

“And, how long did it take before your company terminated him?”

Arlene hesitated, “Eighteen months. But we had to give him a chance. We had to make sure he had the proper training and that he didn’t just get a batch of problem customers.”

“He didn’t fail because of the training,” I replied. “And customers are always problem customers, so that’s not it. And he did not fail because you didn’t tell him what to do, the prescribed duties. He failed in the discretionary part, the decisions he had to make as he approached the work. These are the decisions that managers never talk about with their team. And it is these decisions that make the difference between success or failure.”

Which Tasks Does the Manager Keep?

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
When we write a role description, you suggest that we break the role into different Key Result Areas, to organize the tasks and accountabilities. Will some of the Key Result Areas carry accountabilities (goals) with different Time Spans or do all KRAs in a role have to carry the same Time Span?

Response:
Heavens no. Every task, every goal carries its own Time Span. Each KRA has to be examined for its related tasks, and, yes, they will all be different.

Let’s look at two KRAs for a Stratum III role, a plant manager.

  • Plant Floor Layout
  • Production Scheduling

The specific task in Plant Floor Layout, might be to integrate a new machine into the work cell flow. That task may take 12-18 months to analyze the ROI of replacing a work cell (manual output) with this new machine (automated output), making the decision to purchase the machine, determining which machine to purchase, identifying the best vendor to supply the machine, negotiating the contract to get the machine, changing work flow to accommodate the space for the new machine (which may require a new concrete floor), taking delivery of the new machine, assembly and setup, troubleshooting (these machines never work out of the box), creating new work instructions, training personnel on machine operation, getting the machine up to capacity, to meet the output of the original ROI model. This is solid Stratum III work.

Production Scheduling may require a historical look-back at seasonal volume changes, loading work levels to match anticipated sales forecasts, making sure we have sufficient headcount in our production crews, and then specifically creating work shift schedules. The Time Span of these tasks will vary from 3-12 months, and likely require Stratum II capability.

The plant manager will be accountable for both KRAs, though the tasks in one would be Stratum III and the other Stratum II.

My expectation, however, is that the plant manager will self-perform most of the Stratum III tasks and look to delegate large pieces of the Stratum II tasks. Identifying the Time Span of the tasks gives every manager insight as to what work has to be self-performed and what work may be delegated.