Elliott observed the frustration in the Management Team Meeting and watched as it failed to achieve the teamwork intentions of Wilfred Brown.

And Elliott made a suggestion. It was a simple suggestion, but its impact profound.

From that day forward, the Management Team Meeting would carry a new name. In its place, it would be called the President’s Meeting. The members of the meeting would be the same, the frequency would be the same, but the accountability for its decisions would no longer rest with the team, but with the president.

In fact, the accountability of its decisions had never rested with the team. The accountability had always rested with the president. This small change only now, clearly described what had always been.

But now, what was different?

Naming the meeting according to reality brought a new enthusiasm to its purpose. The purpose was, now, to capture the input of the management team, to identify the challenges that exist, both in the external market and the internal organization, to identify the technical details and consider alternative solutions, so the president could make the best decision. There were no more illusions, no more contrived circumstances. The politics disappeared and the team moved forward with great clarity.

This lesson about who is accountable for the goal is a lesson that has value at every layer in the organization. More about that tomorrow. -TF

Still in Philly, working with another group today, more on Elliott Jaques.
__
The Board of Directors had assigned a goal to the president, Wilfred Brown. It was Wilfred, alone who would be accountable. It was Wilfred, alone, who had the authority to make the necessary decisions, to commit resources, to set the reasonable Time Span of task assignments for his management team, to adjust the strategy, to shut down a project, to acquire a technology. It was a long term goal defined by the Board and the Board had entrusted its execution to a man named Wilfred Brown.

And what is more, Wilfred Brown was up to the challenge. He understood. He had the necessary capability to plan and execute, to achieve the goal.

Wilfred’s executive team was hand-picked, each chosen for their experience, their skill and their capability for the tasks they were assigned. But the tasks (goals) they were assigned, were of shorter Time Span than those (goals) created by the Board for Wilfred Brown.

And it was at these Management Team Meetings that Wilfred would present the problems he faced and the decisions to be made. His executive team could, each, see the impact in their own discipline, and each, in their own way, could make decisions appropriate to their assignments.

But in the largest sense, they failed to see what Wilfred Brown could see. Wilfred could explain and demonstrate, argue and persuade, but in the end, in some cases, he would veto the team’s conclusions on the largest decisions.

Greetings from Philadelphia. Talking to a group about Elliott Jaques.
__
So, what was the point of this Management Team Meeting? The Management Team was asked to participate in the biggest decisions and solve the biggest problems. Yet, all too often, Wilfred Brown the Managing Director, would make his own decision.

What is the point of your Management Team Meetings? Is it important to set the context for the work of the company, to describe the market, identify the customers? Is it important to describe the ultimate goals of the organization, the long term vision?

Is it then important to capture the input of the management team, to identify the challenges that exist, both in the external market and the internal organization? Is it important to identify the technical details and consider alternative solutions?

And is it better to do this alone, in the solitude of the president’s office, or is it better to put together the heads of the management team?

You see, Wilfred Brown’s intention to include his management team was not only noble, it made common sense. More than that, it was necessary.

But what was the point, if Wilfred was going to veto some of the important decisions?

And Elliott watched. He made notes. He talked to the members of the management team, and he talked with Wilfred Brown.

You see, before the Management Team Meeting, Wilfred Brown sat in another meeting. This meeting was behind closed doors. It wasn’t secret, but the doors were closed. This meeting was a meeting of the Board of Directors. In this meeting, Wilfred Brown was given his marching orders. The Board made its decisions, decided direction and set its goal. These were not operational directives, but strategic milestones well into the future.

So, Wilfred Brown arrived at the Management Team Meeting, knowing the goal assigned to him by the Board of Directors. Wilfred had noble intentions of creating an atmosphere of teamwork. He held a deep belief in the importance of his management team participating in the largest problems and making the biggest decisions.

But, in the end, (of many meetings), the decisions, made by the executive team, would fall short of those directives determined by the Board. And it would not be the team sitting in that next Board meeting. It would be Wilfred who would be held accountable for the decisions made in the Management Team Meeting. Often enough to disturb the team, Wilfred, reluctantly had to step in.

So, what was the point of this Management Team Meeting?

At first, the management team was understanding. While Wilfred Brown, president of Glacier Metals, expressed an interest in teamwork, perhaps it would take some time for the evidence of productive teamwork to emerge. And while the management team was learning to get to consensus quicker, they would have to endure Wilfred Brown’s veto at the conclusion of most of the Management Team Meetings.

But the ying became more separated from the yang. Efforts to influence the agenda and the decisions became aggressive, then passive. What was the point? Team members could collaborate, advance their cause, form alliances to outvote, finally to manipulate, but in the end, Wilfred Brown would make the decision.

You see, there was something the management team did not know. Actually, they did know, but they did not understand its impact.

In 1948, in London, Elliott began to work closely with the Glacier Metals Company, a manufacturer of precision steel ball bearings. It was a company of some size and technical complication, with different departments, a complement of engineers, a management team and a president named Wilfred Brown.

Like most companies, each week or so, a high level meeting took place, called the Management Team Meeting. It was Wilfred’s intention to purposefully build his executive team by including them in on the company’s largest problems to be solved and decisions to be made.

The executive team responded with enthusiasm to be included in such important activities. By harnessing all the brain power in that room, certainly, they could tackle the toughest challenge and make the best decisions.

The intentions were noble.

As time went by, however, the productivity of the group began to wear thin. In their efforts to reach consensus, to be cooperative and supportive, to be the team they intended to be, the pace began to slow. Discussions became arguments, agendas became political, quid pro quo became active.

And then, the unthinkable. The group would finally arrive at its decision and Wilfred Brown, the President, would invoke his veto.

From the Ask Tom mailbag.

Question:
I have been reading Elliott Jaques’ book Social Power and the CEO. As I read, I get the feeling that he proposes a rigid command and control structure. I have been working hard to create an atmosphere of teamwork and command and control seems to go against my current thinking.

Response:
Since you attended one of my workshops, you have a good foundation to more clearly understand the framework of Requisite Organization. Still, you must read Elliott’s books carefully. Elliott was very precise in his language and sometimes you have to fight your own interpretation of his descriptions.

Because we talked offline, I know your struggle has to do with Elliott’s description of accountability and how that lines up with your interpretation of teamwork.

Most managers think about teamwork as collective thinking, collective problem solving and collective decision making. The intent is to bring more thinking power to bear on problems and to make better decisions. The intent is noble, but the result often falls short.

A consensus decision does not mean it is a better decision. And, in the end, it is not the team who will be held accountable for that decision. It is the leader who will be held accountable. Indeed, if it is the leader who is accountable, it is the leader who must make the decision.

This is not command and control and it is not consensus. This understanding is a shift toward a more effective way for the team, working together, to achieve the goal.

Tomorrow, I will tell the story of how Elliott came to this insight.