Category Archives: Organization Structure

You Are Not a Manager So People Can Report To You

3 Replies

“Yes, but shouldn’t these people be reporting to me?” Ted asked.

“That depends. Functionally, their roles produce results you are interested in, but are you prepared to be their Manager?” I replied.

“I think so. I think they can report to me. I think I can hold them accountable for producing those results. I think I can check up on them to make sure they are working,” Ted proposed.

I smiled. “I know, you think being a manager is all about people reporting to you, and you, telling people what to do. But are you prepared to be their Manager?”

Ted gave a glance sideways.

“Your most important role,” I continued, “as a manager, is to bring value to the problem solving and decision making of your team. Are you bringing value by telling them that their reports are due on Friday and then reminding them Monday morning that their reports are late?”

Ted was still staring, but putting the pieces together. “Well, no, not when you put it that way.”

“Then, how, as their Manager, do you bring that value? And are you committed to bring that value? Are you willing to commit the time to bring that value? The answers to these questions will determine whether you should be the manager of this team.”

Quick-list on Levels of Work

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
Tom, I just read the One Most Important Thing and it does cause some thinking and wondering how much many of us are doing this all wrong. I am the owner of a business but have been in some form of leadership or management for over 15 years and I don’t ever remember a real comprehensive approach to hiring or even with the detail you offer. I am reading your new book, Hiring Talent right now and hopefully can glean much of what needs to happen in our own company. I wanted to ask you about how long you see this taking to really create a different and better culture within an organization that perhaps never used any of these tools? It almost seems a little overwhelming to be honest with you. We are going from doing none of this to doing what we should be. I may be in touch with you often for some guidance.

Response:
How long does it take for a child to learn to walk. As long as it takes. And it is always a work-in-progress. I believe the most important element of this process is you. Hiring Talent is a mindset about work. It’s a different way of looking at work and the candidates you select from your talent pool.

Most managers never consider the level of work when thinking about a new role or filling an existing role. All the tasks and activities get lumped on a list with the tagline – “and anything else we can think of.”

Level of work is the key to understanding the capability required for success in the role. Here is my quick-list on levels of work.

  • S-I – Individual output, longest task – 1 day to 3 months
  • S-II – Coordinate team output, longest task – 3 months to 12 months
  • S-III – Create, monitor, improve system output, longest task – 12 months to 24 months
  • S-IV – Integrate multiple systems and subsystems for “whole” system throughput, longest task – 2 years to 5 years
  • S-V – Create, monitor, improve value chain between internal “whole” system and external market, longest task – 5 years to 10 years.

Any questions?

The Difference Between a Supervisor and a Manager

2 Replies

“I was one of the guys, as the team supervisor, now I am their manager,” said Jeremy. “I mean, I know what to do, it just feels weird.”

“Tell me about it.” I asked.

“Well, on Friday, we used to always go out for happy hour. Now, I am holding back. Maybe I will show up once a month after work, but I will usually only stay for one beer, then I beg off and hit the road.”

“What’s changed about the relationships?”

Jeremy took his time to respond. “I guess, instead of being a friend, the relationship was always about the work. I mean, it’s okay to be friendly, but sometimes you have to hold the line, sometimes you have to confront, sometimes the conversation is difficult.” He stopped. “And sometimes you feel by yourself.”

“So, who can you hang out with now?”

“Well, there other managers in the company. They have all been supportive. It is a different perspective. I’m the new kid on the block.”

“And what about your old team, from when you were a supervisor?”

“I am still a manager in that department, but now I work through their new supervisor. My relationship with the team, it’s not accountability anymore, not with me. Now, it’s more like a mentor relationship. It’s a longer view. Instead of me, telling them what to do, I do more observing. Their new supervisor is more concerned with their day-to-day productivity. I am actually looking for the team member that will emerge as the next supervisor in another year.”

“Why do you think all this feels weird?” I ask.

“It’s new,” said Jeremy. “My role is different. I never thought there was this much difference between being a supervisor and being a manager.”
_____
Our online program, Hiring Talent, kicked off its orientation last Friday, but there is still time to jump in on this round. For more information and registration, follow this link, Hiring Talent-2013.

MoRs and Succession

2 Replies

Yesterday, I posted a casual conversation about something I have observed as a fatal flaw in most organizations, the flaw is failing to think forward about succession. The biggest constraint to most companies is the lack of managerial talent. We get so tied up in getting production out the door, we forget about sustaining that momentum beyond the month, the quarter, the year.

In the posted conversation, I did not specifically describe where this accountability lies, nor its mechanics. In short order, I received an email from a colleague, clarifying the situation.

“It is NOT the accountability of a manager ‘to find and build a person as your replacement’ – that is the accountability of a manager’s manager, the Manager-once-Removed (MoR). Immediate managers are to be held accountable to coach subordinate employees ‘in role.’ MoRs are to be held accountable to ‘mentor’ subordinates-once-removed (SoR) related to career planning and potential advancement. MoRs should be held accountable to

  • learn if SoRs seek advancement, and
  • judge their future potential capability to determine if one could, in fact, have the requisite capability to work at a higher level.

And the manager of MoRs should hold MoRs accountable to do this work.
Here is a diagram of those relationships.
MOR-Mentor
My thanks to Kevin Earnest for paying attention and clarifying.

The Real Constraint

Leave a reply

“I admit it. I am struggling. I feel like I am trying to ride two horses at the same time. My boss wants me to take on more responsibility, but I still have all this other work to do. He says I need to let go, but I don’t know who to get to help me.” Rachel was moving up in the organization, but needed to identify someone on her staff as an emerging manager to fill in behind.

“Rachel, you say you want this new responsibility?” I waited. Though I knew her head would say yes. “Here is a big fat secret. You will never be able to move up in this organization until you have found someone to take over what you do.

“Everyone thinks you cannot move up until you have learned a new skill, but the real constraint is below. You cannot move up until you have identified a person to take over your current responsibilities. And once you find them, you have to train them and test them.

“One of your biggest responsibilities, as a manager, is to find and build a person as your replacement. And it doesn’t happen in a week. You have to be thinking two or three years to the future.”

Our online program, Hiring Talent 2013, kicks off January 25. Pre-registration is now open.

Designed Around the Work

1 Reply

“I know you want me to be the nice guy,” Jim Dunbar pushed back, “that I would have a better organization if I wasn’t so hard on people, but at the end of the day, we have to get some work done around here.”

It stings against political correctness, but if you consider, for a moment, that statement is true, what changes?

What if, it is all about the work? What if the purpose of your organization is to actually get some work done, solve a problem, execute a solution? It’s not for every organization, only those with the intended purpose to get work done, complete a task, achieve a goal.

Some organizations are designed around other intentions, religious organizations, political organizations, educational organizations, collegial organizations, all with purpose, all with goals.

What if the purpose of your organization was to get some work done? What if your organization was designed around the work?

The Sucker Punch Question of Org Charts

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I was in your Time Span presentation about Elliott Jaques and Managerial Relationships. I recently discovered that our perceived organization chart is quite different that the one I had or felt was in place. I had all of my managers draw their view of our Org Chart so I can get a better grip on the disconnect. What is the best way to create the most accurate Org Chart and most importantly, implement it?

Response:
Interesting that Elliott faced this same dilemma. He described these various versions of the Org Chart this way –

  • Manifest Org Chart – this is the published version
  • Assumed Org Chart – this is the version that different people assume, as many versions as you have people. This is the version you received from your managers.
  • Extant Org Chart – the way the Org Chart actually works, based on observations and interviews. This would include all the dysfunction, vagaries, dotted lines, stupid rules, end arounds and general mayhem.
  • Requisite Org Chart – the design of managerial relationships based on Requisite principles.

When we put Org Charts together, we think the central question is “who reports to whom?” This is a sucker punch question that leads us astray. It is not a matter of “who reports to whom?” but a matter of “which manager is accountable for the output of which team or team member?”

A manager is that person in the organization held accountable for the output of their team. So, when I examine any role, it’s not a matter of who that role should report to. When I examine the role, it’s a matter of which manager is accountable for the output of this role.

This subtle shift is a game-changer. The Organization Chart is a visual depiction of managerial accountability, not “who reports to whom?”

But your question is how best to create this visual depiction. Ultimately, all crumbs lead to the top. I hold the CEO accountable for the design of the work. But the detail of this design is best hashed out in a series of meetings considering these questions –

  • What is the work to be done, tasks to be completed?”
  • What is the Level of Work?
  • What role is best to complete the tasks?
  • Which manager is accountable for the completion of those tasks (output)?

Very interesting questions.

Luck? or Variability

Leave a reply

“Okay, we got together and hammered out what we think we are facing, as an organization, moving forward,” Vicki explained. “We wrote it all down on eight flip chart pages. We used your chart on Growing Pains. We think we have moved through the first two stages. We have a sustainable sales volume and we have documented our methods and processes, our best practices. But you were right, our problem is our profitability.”

“How so?” I asked.

“We get most of the way through a project, everything is right on track, then, it all goes out the window. Things happen. We get to the end of the project, and boom, our labor budget lands 40 percent over. Lucky, our buyout was 10 percent under, but we still lose 30 points on the job.”

“How often does this happen?”

Vicki squinted, looking for the answer. “Seven out of eight projects in the past three months,” she grimaced. “And the one project on target was a fluke, dumb luck. There was a problem on the job covered by a bond from another contractor. We got through by the skin of our teeth.”

“You realize, you have used the word ‘luck’ twice in the past 15 seconds?”

Burning Platforms

2 Replies

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I attended your Time Span workshop. So now I am curious, this clearly resonated. But where do we start?

Response:
Why? at the beginning, of course.

There are a number of simple things you can do, as a manager. But, I think, first, is to determine why you would do them. In the workshop, we started with an organizational analysis, to surface the challenges your company has faced, getting to where it is today. And then, to look forward, to understand what changes you will face taking your company to the next level.

In most cases, those challenges are predictable, depending on what stage your organization is moving through. But you have to write them down, with some detail.

This is where I start.

What are the burning platforms, the hot spots? Where do things seem to be stuck? What has to change? Where are the growing pains?

Only when you identify these changes, only when you identify the pain, will you understand the necessity of the solution. This is where I start.

This starting place is obvious, you and your management team already know this pain. You have likely discussed it, in meetings and in the hallway. So, write it down. Fishbone out the details. Don’t try to solve the pain, yet. Just document it.

Slow down.

Don’t jump to conclusions about solutions, because you, now, have this new lens, this new framework to look at these challenges. Before the workshop, you thought you had a personality conflict or a breakdown in communication. Most often, those turn out to be a misalignment in organizational structure.

Reframe your challenges, now, in the light of Time Span. This is where I start.

Dysfunctional Undermining Behavior

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
Does the Manager-Once-Removed (MOR) have the tendency to undermine the Manager to show that they cannot do their job well?

Response:
Sounds like a simple question, but it is actually complicated. Let’s start by laying out this structure visually.

Manager-Once-Removed (MOR)
__________________________

Manager
__________________________

Team Member

Your question is about undermining. This could be undermining authority, undermining performance, no matter, it is dysfunctional coping behavior. So what could be going on with the MOR? The undermining behavior is not the problem (I mean, it’s a problem, but not THE problem). Simply stopping the undermining behavior will not solve the underlying difficulty.

When I see this kind of dysfunctional behavior, which could present as undermining, micro-managing or just being mean, I always look for structural problems. Most would think we have a personality conflict or that we need a communication seminar, but both are smokescreens for a misalignment in organizational structure.

Most likely we have promoted the MOR to a role for which they are unprepared. I look for one of four underlying causes of the underperformance –

  • The MOR lacks the necessary capability
  • The MOR lacks the necessary skill
  • The MOR does not value the work of an MOR
  • We failed to contract for the necessary behavior of an MOR

So, who do I hold accountable for the underperformance of the MOR? It is the MOR’s manager (yes, the MOR has a manager, too) that I hold accountable. It was likely a faulty selection decision to promote this person to the MOR role with insufficient due diligence or testing.