Comment from Kevin to yesterday’s post Mine to Keep.

Comment:
I am interested in how you made the connection between due date and time span. Just because a deliverable is required later in the process, does not necessarily mean that it has a longer time span or involves more strategic thinking.

For example, when building a machine or facility, the design (site layout, engineering drawings etc.) are needed first while the finishes (paint, tile etc) could be required last. Yet it may take years of coordinating stakeholders, engineers and architects to develop the design vs. a few months of focus groups etc for the finishes. In this scenario, I would rather handle the design and delegate the finishes.

Therefore, it would seem as though the “what by when” might be a bit simplified and that we should rather focus on “what and how long” in order to differentiate between the due date and the time span.

Response:
Thanks for the distinction. Time Span is measured from the starting time for the task and indicates the time during which discretionary decisions are made to achieve the goal. Your example of the construction project is correct. Due date, as the measurement for Time Span, only works when the start time for everything is NOW. You are correct in measuring the Time Span from when the tasks are actually assigned, though the due date may be late in the overall construction process.

“When you sort your goals by length of Time Span, the “by when” part, what do you see?” I asked.

Colleen was actually re-sorting her list using arrows. “I am going to clean this up and put it in Outlook, but I can already see the short Time Span goals are those I can delegate. And some of the longer Time Span goals need to be split into some shorter Time Span goals, and I can delegate those as well.

“And some of the longest Time Span goals,” she continued, “well, those are mine to keep. Those will require a different kind of thinking. I cannot delegate that.”

“I still don’t know what you are getting at,” Arlene shook her head. “It’s entry level work. You are right, it’s not that interesting.”

“Don’t be so swift,” I reprimanded. “Let’s talk about this entry-level work. First, what is work?”

Arlene was looking up, retrieving the answer planted in her mind some weeks ago. “I remember. Work is making decisions and solving problems.”

“Okay. And what decisions must be made in connection with this entry-level work?”

“It’s pretty cut and dried,” Arlene related. “Our work is highly regulated. Everything we do has to be within very specific guidelines.”

“And what if it’s not cut and dried,” I challenged. “You see, the guidelines you work under only set the quality standards for the output. Let’s ask the question again. What decisions must be made in connection with this work? And as we answer, I think you will find this work is quite a bit more than entry-level.”

“Okay, I pay him to solve problems and make decisions, not to push the button,” Vicki tested, still resisting. “Aren’t you just being picky?”

“I am. And for a reason,” I replied. “People don’t come to work to push a button. They come to work to solve problems and make decisions. They come to work to contribute. They come to contribute to a group of people who they hold in high regard. Much of their identity is related to the position they hold in your company.

“Our status in life, our place in the world is defined by the groups we belong to. If we don’t belong to a group, we don’t exist.”

Vicki was listening, her posture gaining interest.

“People want work that challenges them to their highest level of capability. In that work, there is true satisfaction. Not by pushing a button, but exercising their full judgment in making decisions toward a goal.” -TF

Vicki was stumped.

“Your team member is in the break room, having a soda, thinking about a problem in his work area that needs to be solved,” I repeated. “Would you call that work?”

“I want to say no,” Vicki struggled. “He is not at his work station working, so he can’t be working. I know, he is not being productive, so even though he is thinking, he is not being productive, so he is not working.”

“And if he does not solve this problem he is thinking about, his productivity will stop,” I continued.

“You want me to say yes, he is working, but it feels like no,” Vicki insisted.

“Vicki, do you pay your machine operator to move a piece of metal into position and to press a button to cut the metal? Because, if that was it, you could hire a robot. Or do you pay your machinist for his judgment of how raw materials are organized to enter the work area, the cleanliness of the scrap produced by the machine, the attention paid to the preventive maintenance to keep the machine operating?”

Vicki finally responded in a long slow sentence. “I pay him for his ability to solve problems and make decisions, not to push the button.”

“There must be more,” Alicia repeated. “If it is NOT Joe’s role to motivate his team members, then how is he supposed to make sure the work gets done? I understand it is Joe that will be held accountable for the results of his team. It has to be more than who he picks to be on his team?”

“Yes, there’s more, but would you agree that it matters who Joe selects?”

Alicia nodded, “Yes.”

“And as Joe selects his team, with your help, as Joe’s manager, what are the criteria that he must select for?”

“First, he has to look at their skill set.”

“And can we train those skills that are necessary?” I asked.

“It depends, some things we want general experience, but we would certainly train on our specific methods,” she replied.

“And what else? Remember, if it is NOT Joe’s job to motivate, what must he interview for?”

“Well, then, they have to be interested. I mean, interested in the kind of work that has to be done.”

“Okay,” my turn to nod. “And tell me, Alicia. If Joe is successful in finding a candidate with a high level of interest in the work we do here, how much time will Joe have to spend motivating his team?”