Beginnings of Mistrust

“And what else?” I asked.

“This is a tough one,” she started. “Our bonus system. I think our bonus system is causing some of the problems.”

“How so?”

“Well, we wanted to make sure we didn’t get into lawsuits based on construction defects, so we pay a bonus to our engineering manager when we have zero claims. It sounds noble, but that sets up someone to over-work against our operations manager, who is just trying to get the job done.

“To make matters worse, we diligently work the project schedules to avoid delay claims. Delay claims can do more than suck the profit out of a job. So we pay a bonus to our operations manager when we have zero delay claims.

“So, now I have two people on the same team who are working against each other.”

“What else?”

Alicia began with a blank stare, then a hint of something in her mind. “I think,” she replied, “the worst part about our bonus system is that it creates mistrust.”

Two Masters

“And what else?” I asked.

“That the problems I observed did not come from the idiosyncrasies of the people involved, but from the systems that I created as the Manager,” Alicia replied.

“Like?”

“Like assigning a project team with two leaders, giving neither the authority to make a decision that would conflict with the other. I thought there was a personality conflict, when it was my system drawing out the behavior. If you want to make people really schizophrenic, assign them to report to two different masters.”

Authority and Accountability

The room was empty except for the two of us. I turned to Alicia, “See it wasn’t that bad. How upside down was your stomach?”

“You know, in the beginning,” she started. “I was afraid that things would get out of control and create more of a problem. But, as the meeting continued, I finally realized that the very things that could blow my team apart were the same things that could weld it together.”

“What else did you learn?” I asked.

“I realized that I have to stop coddling people. My team doesn’t need coddling, they need leadership. And part of that leadership is that I am accountable for the results of the team.

“I am the one in position to know all of the changing circumstances reported by the individual team members. I am the only one with the authority to select and deselect team members. I am the only one with the authority to make or change task assignments. Most importantly, I am the one accountable for those decisions.”

Fixing Accountability

“Have you abdicated your responsibility, as a Manager, to a watered down decision making protocol called consensus, in an effort to appease everyone and get everyone to play nice?” I repeated.

“That’s not a fair question,” Alicia protested.

I smiled. “You are right, it’s loaded with assumption and exaggeration, but it makes a point. Who, on this team should be making critical decisions about the Phoenix Project? Critical decisions based on the excellent engineering recommendations from Russ’ department, and based on the realities of production confronted by Corey and his team?”

“But I wanted to empower the team. I wanted to get buy-in,” Alicia protested, sitting at the head of the table, each team member listening intently.

“Alicia, this team is empowered to do what they do best. This team has bought in. There is a ton of commitment around this table. What they need is a decision.

There was silence.

Paula raised her hand. “You know, this meeting has always been called the Project team meeting. Maybe it should be called the Division Manager’s Meeting?”

Alicia had not been promoted to Division Manager because she was slow. I nodded to her. My work was done. It was Alicia’s turn.

“Tomorrow morning, we will convene the Division Manager’s Meeting. We have a very important decision to make about the Phoenix Project. The meeting will last for 60 minutes, during which time I will listen to presentations, arguments and discussion about this decision. At the end of the meeting, I will make a decision as to the direction. Based on my decision, it will be up to each of you to carry on, giving it your best.

“As conditions change, we will meet each week to discuss new critical issues. I expect each of you to handle the details. We will only talk about difficult decisions.

“Thank you all for your attention and participation in this meeting. Let’s get back to work.”

Abdicating Responsibility

All eyes settled on Alicia. “Alicia, tell me again, what you believe your role is as Division Manager on the Phoenix Project?”

I had asked this question before and I could tell Alicia had practiced the answer. “My role is to put the team together, assign the leadership, make sure there is consensus and that the project stays on track.”

“And what is the name of this meeting?” I continued.

“Well, this is the Project Team meeting,” she replied.

“And do you attend these meetings?”

“Yes, at the end of the day, I am responsible for the Phoenix Project.”

“And, as the Division Manager, have you abdicated your responsibility, as a manager, to a watered down decision making protocol called consensus, in an effort to appease everyone and get everyone to play nice?”

I think I detected a bit more shifting in the chairs as this meeting was getting closer to the truth.

Who Should Make the Decision?

Paula, one of the team members from administration, raised her hand. “It seems to me that no one can make a decision around here. Russ has his engineering agenda, and it’s important, but if we don’t get the project done on time, that’s a problem, too.”

“Paula, do you think Russ should fight less hard for project specifications that he believes in?” I asked.

Paula shook her head, “No.”

“And do you think Russ should fight less hard to keep the project on track?”

Paula continued to move her head from side to side.

“So, who should make the decision?” I watched each team member look down and then look at Alicia, the Division Manager.

Not a Personality Conflict

Russ made his point, that the contract called for certain technical specifications, and also declared his bias, that his bonus was based on the absence of litigation related to project specifications. So I turned to Corey.

“Corey, the team gets confused when they get conflicting direction from both you and Russ. Russ stated a good case that we have to stick to the specs. How do you respond?”

Corey’s face was terse. “It is my responsibility to make sure this project stays on track and on schedule. Sometimes we have to make a change to prevent delays. If we don’t make our schedule, we take it on the chin with a delay claim. By the way, I get a bonus at the end of the year when we have zero delay claims against us.”

I looked at both Russ and Corey, then at Alicia, then at the team.

“So, we have conflict here. This conflict was first described to me as a personality conflict,” I began. “But, this does not look like a personality conflict to me.” I looked straight at the team, one by one. “So, what is the problem, here?”

Taking It on the Chin

Joe explained it well. The contract with his crew was to do their best. If goals weren’t met, the accountability for the shortfall must go to their leaders. It is only the leader who is in a position to make the decisions that determine success or failure.

So, I turned back to Alicia, the Division Manager, and to both Russ and Corey, the project leaders.

“So, Russ, you represent the engineering department, how do you respond?”

Russ had been quietly turning a brighter shade of red, and it wasn’t from embarrassment. “Look, it is my job to make sure that the technical requirements of the customer are met. If we make any material changes to the specifications and there is a component failure, we will take it on the chin in a lawsuit. By the way, I get a bonus at the end of every year that we are not involved in litigation.”

Accountability for Results

“Tell me more, Joe. When you are given conflicting direction from Russ and Corey, how does that impact your driver crew?” I asked.

“First of all, I have a great crew, dedicated and very serious when the going gets tough. They know, at the end of this project, based on delays, there is going to be hell to pay. They know the excuses will fly and part of the blame will land on logistics.

“They also know,” Joe continued, “that, during the project, they have no control over priorities and sequence. They make recommendations, but they are not in a position to know the overall impact or changes in scope or changes in schedule. They are only in a position to move our heavy equipment as instructed.

“I keep it pretty simple. My only contract with them is that they do their best. And if, at the end of the day, the goals aren’t met, then the accountability for the shortfall must be with the leadership. It is leadership that determines the schedule, sets the pace, allocates the resources and makes the decisions that determine the outcome.”

Speak for Yourself

I surveyed the room. No one on the team, not Alicia, the Division Manager, nor Russ or Corey, her project leaders, was making eye contact.

“The purpose of the meeting today, is to discuss the conflict between Russ and Corey and determine what is going to change to get the project back on track,” I continued. Alicia finally looked over. The blood was draining from her face.

“One ground rule in this discussion,” I continued. “I am going to ask some questions. When you respond, you may only speak for yourself.”

There were a couple of blank looks as I focused my attention, now, on the team members. I started with Joe, who was in charge of heavy equipment scheduling and logistics. “Joe, do you ever observe conflicting directions from Russ and Corey?”

Joe hesitated, but nodded his head affirmative.

“Speak only for yourself, Joe. What impact does it have on your work, when you observe these conflicts?”

Joe was a bit relieved at the question. He was afraid I was going to ask him to take sides. “Sometimes, it’s confusing,” he began. “I get started on one thing and I have to stop. I supervise a crew of drivers who move the heavy stuff in place. When I have them start and stop, I immediately know there is a problem with the leadership.” -TF