Category Archives: Organization Structure

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.

More Problems Than We Had Before

1 Reply

“Let’s look back at your org chart,” I suggested. “You have 110 employees and twelve layers of supervision and management. Two people quit yesterday, so your org chart is already out of date. What do you think you need to change?”

Sydney’s mood had turned from generous to perplexed. “Our intention was to make sure everyone had someone appropriate to report, and to make sure no manager was overburdened.”

“And you ended up with?” I pressed.

“And we ended up with people in positions, creating more problems than we had, before we announced this new reorganization,” Sydney explained.

“I want you to shift your approach to this problem. Instead of trying to figure out who should report to who, determine which manager is accountable for the output of which team. And for this exercise, I want you to reduce from 12 layers to four.”
____

A friend of mine in Buffalo NY, Michael Cardus, published a short piece on the impact of role-crowding, too many layers. Take a look.

Too Many Layers

1 Reply

Sydney thought for a moment. “We just promoted Justin to Team Leader. The rest of the guys on the crew say he is breathing down their necks. He is obviously not ready to be a full supervisor, and we are losing his productivity as a machine operator.”

“And?” I prodded.

“And I really don’t know what to do,” Sydney replied.

“Let’s look again at your instructions to Justin. You said if a team member has a problem, help them solve it, if they have a question, answer it and make sure all the work gets done by the end of the day. And yet, you said he was not ready to be a supervisor? Sounds like you gave him supervisor tasks, but you already know he is struggling with those tasks.”

“Yes, but, if we are going to have the team report to Justin..” Sydney stopped. “So, I took my lead technician and tried to make him a supervisor, even though we already have a supervisor. It looked good on paper.”

“Actually, it didn’t look good on paper. You have 112 employees and twelve layers,” I observed.

“I know, I said 112,” Sydney explained. “Now it’s 110, two people quit this morning.”

Looks Good on Paper

Leave a reply

I was looking at Sydney’s org chart. I could see a familiar pattern.

“We have been working really hard on this,” Sydney explained. “Every manager knows who reports to them, so there should be no confusion. And every direct report has a manager.”

“I am just looking,” I said, “how many layers, or levels do you have on this chart?”

“That’s what took so much time,” Sydney replied. “We have 112 employees, in twelve layers. Pretty good job, neat and tidy.”

“Well, it all fits on one page,” I observed, “even though it’s a big piece of paper. Where did you get this printed?”

Sydney laughed. “The problem is, it looks good on paper, but not so good in reality.”

“Oh?” I said, with a diagnostic look on my face.

“Yes, like the guys on the shop floor. They all report to a Team Leader, Justin, best equipment operator we have. We told Justin, from now on, if they have a problem, you help them solve it. If they have a question, answer it. And at the end of the day, all the work needs to get done.”

“So, what’s the problem?”

Sydney took a breath. “The guys are now complaining that Justin is breathing down their necks. They say they already know how to do their jobs and that if they have a real problem, Justin is no help, they have to go to the supervisor, anyway. What’s worse, even Justin’s productivity is suffering, eight out of the last ten production days have been short to the work orders.”

“So, what do you think you are going to do?”