“That makes sense,” Nadia agreed. “I have been guilty of empowering my team to do things they did not have the capability to do. Didn’t turn out so well.”
“Yes, that weasel word of empowerment has very little to do with granting permission,” I replied. “Empowerment, or rather authority to make a specific decision has more to do with competence. It is competence that creates authority, not permission.”
“So, accountability and authority go together?” Nadia asked.
“You cannot have the accountability for an outcome, unless you have the authority to make the decision that goes with it,” I nodded. “You cannot have the authority to make the decision without the accountability for the outcome. So, yes, they go together. One more element, however. Do not give someone the authority to make a decision for which they do not have the competence to make.”
“What do you mean,” she asked.
“Do not give a shipping clerk the authority to make the decision on an engineering spec for a raw material. The shipping clerk may receive it from a vendor, but it is likely the competence to determine the correct specification for the part lies with someone else. Be careful who you delegate authority to.”
“But, I want to empower my team,” Nadia explained. “They shouldn’t have to ask permission for every little thing they do.”
“Do you think empowerment is all about permission?” I asked. “Empowerment is such a weasel word. What are you really trying to accomplish?”
“I just want them to know that I trust them, that I have good intentions toward them,” she replied.
“That you trust them in general? Or that you trust them with something specific?” I pressed.
“Trust them in general I guess,” Nadia shook her head. “To trust them with something specific, I would have to know what the specific thing was.”
“Now, you have clarity,” I chuckled. “Trusting someone in general is what makes empowerment such a weasel word. It is only operative under specific circumstances. I would rather replace the word empowerment with two other words, authority and accountability. Under a specific circumstance, you, as a manager and at your discretion, delegate the authority to make a decision. When you delegate the authority, you also delegate the accountability that goes with the decison. You can’t have one without the other.”
“It turned out to be a slippery slope,” Noah described. “We had the answer right in front of us. The entire team saw it, but they hesitated.”
“He who hesitates is lost?” I asked.
“I’ll say,” he replied. “The solution to the problem was going to be expensive, with no real way to push off the risk. So, we sat with the problem, we argued about it, complained about it, we pointed fingers at the enemy. All of that, instead of solving the problem.”
“In the end?” I wanted to know.
“In the end, a competitor, who was willing to do the work, swooped in and snatched the contract from our fingers.”
“And your analysis?”
Noah took a breath. “It was like we would rather argue, complain and blame. We would rather sit with the problem than come up with the painful solution we didn’t like. It may have been a bitter pill for our competitor, but they got the contract, and the margin that went with it.”
Who do you listen to for advice? There is good advice and bad advice. Some advice leads to abject failure, some advice leads to success. What is the difference?
Between failure and success is average. What advice leads to average success? Action that leads to high performance is different than action that leads you to average performance.
If you know the difference between good advice and bad advice, maybe you don’t need advice at all. Perhaps you need an analytical process that allows you to truly understand the problem, to understand the drivers of the problem. Part of analysis is to determine what you want, what the best outcome could be. In the middle is the collection of alternatives. And somewhere in there is the best alternative, one that avoids the contributors to failure and opens a pathway to a reasonable chance of success.
I made sly reference to these two concepts last week. Accountability and authority. These are inseparable.
To be accountable for an output, one must have the authority to determine the variables around that output. Do not hamstring a team member by handing them accountability without the authority to control variables. Bifurcating the two leads to well articulated excuses and blaming behavior.
Simultaneously, do not give someone the authority to control variables without the concomitant accountability. Government oversight committees are famous for wanting to have all the authority without accountability.
These two concepts go hand in glove, not either-or, but AND-and.
“I don’t think you have a communication problem,” I said.
Sarah was quiet. “But, it looks like a communication problem. The sales manager is having trouble communicating with the operations manager.”
“I don’t think you have a communication problem,” I repeated. “I think you have an accountability and authority problem.”
“What do you mean?” Sarah asked.
“Is the sales manager the manager of the operations manager?”
“No,” Sarah replied.
“Is the operations manager the manager of the sales manager?”
“No,” she repeated.
“So, when they are required to coordinate together, who is accountable for what, and who has the authority to make what decisions?”
“What do you mean?” Sarah, always with the same question.
“If the operations manager has a backlog of eighteen weeks, does he have the authority to tell sales to stop selling?”
“Of course not,” Sarah looked a bit shocked. “That decision is the sales manager’s decision.”
“So, if the output of sales outstrips the output capacity of operations, who decides to stop?” I asked, politely.
“What do you mean?” Sarah asked, once again.
“You see, I don’t think you have a communication issue. I think you have an accountability and authority issue.”
“You are right,” Byron continued. “The things that hurt us now, are decisions we made a couple of years ago when times were good. It seemed like a good idea at the time. We didn’t think very hard about some of our bone-headed moves.”
“And, now?” I asked.
“And, now we have to get lean. Maybe really lean. It may get worse. We have to be able to take a couple more punches and still be able to maneuver, be able to take advantage of opportunities, but it’s difficult.”
“What is so difficult about it?”
“Well, now, everything has to be focused on a result. If it doesn’t produce a result, it has to go. It’s not pleasant. In many cases, we have to learn to say NO! In the past, we tried to figure out what TO do. Now we have to make decisions on what NOT to do.”
“I’m not sure what happened,” Byron explained. “Our company was voted the number one employer two years ago. We have the best employee benefits, we have the best equipment, we have roomy workspaces, our sales people get trip incentives. All of a sudden, to stay profitable, we have to lay some people off. The mood around here turned south very quickly.”
“Times have been good?” I asked.
“Up ’till now.”
“What happened?”
“Sales have been off. Suddenly all these great things about our company are costing us out of business.”
“When were the decisions made that put you upside-down on your cost structure?”
Byron had to think back. “Three or four years ago, I guess. Those were the best of times.”
“It’s in the Best of Times that we make our biggest mistakes. A little success can create a whole lot of overhead.”**
—
**Red Scott’s Cardinals
“Alright, let’s take a vote,” Ralph directed. I was sitting in the back of the room. I watched the hands go up in favor of Ralph’s plan. There was no dissent. Meeting adjourned.
Ralph was proud, no opposition, he picked up his stuff and strutted out of the room. And that’s when the truth came out. It started as a whisper, a snide remark, and then the piling on began. As it turned out, no one was in favor of Ralph’s plan.
“What do you mean?” Ralph said as I settled into his office.
“I don’t think your plan has a chance for success,” I replied. “As you left the room, I got to thinking, wondering if your plan had covered all the bases, in fact, if it was even the right decision.”
“But, everyone voted,” Ralph protested.
I nodded. “Do you think voting is the best way to make a decision?”
“Hey, it’s how we elect a president?”
I smiled and repeated, “Do you think voting is the best way to make a decision?”
“Well, do you have a better way?” Ralph challenged.
“I was just looking at your four alternatives. You know, there were two things that were absolute deal killers and the one you picked doesn’t meet the criteria.”
“What do you mean?”
“Think about it this way, Ralph. Put up a big chart on the wall and make a quick list of all the things that absolutely, positively have to be a part of the solution. Deal killers. Then make a list of all the things that are not absolute, but would be really nice to have. Now you have two lists, absolutes and desirables.
“Take your four alternatives and put them up against the criteria and see how things shake out.”
Ralph didn’t say a word. His eyes got wide. I could see him mentally checking his quick list. “I think I need to bring the team back in the room. I think they voted for a mistake.”