Seeing the Future

2 Replies

“You were promoted because your manager was promoted. I didn’t think you were ready to make the move from supervisor to manager, but the position was open and the COO was impatient. He is now having second thoughts when he looks at your turnover statistics.”

Melanie became quiet. Her voice was calm. “I didn’t know that. But you said two of my supervisors quit because they graduated night school and got better jobs. I can’t help that?”

“We didn’t find that out until the exit interview. They had jobs lined up three months before they gave you notice. And you didn’t know.”

“But how was I supposed to know. We stay pretty busy around here,” she protested.

“Melanie, the job of being a manager is not about being busy. It’s not about scrambling to save the day. As a supervisor, you were effective at that. Now, it is killing your effectiveness as a manager. As a manager, your role is completely different.

“You said you could anticipate things, as a supervisor,” I continued. “You said you could see the future. I need you to see even further into the future. As a manager, I need you to think out 12 months.”

Melanie shifted, sat up, “But, who knows what is going to happen a year from now?”

“Indeed,” I said. “What things do you need to pay attention to that will have an impact one year from now?” -TF

From Supervisor to Manager

Leave a reply

Our next Leadership program kicks off January 9, 2008. For registration information, visit www.workingleadership.com.
__

“Do you know why you were promoted from supervisor to manager last year?” I asked.

“Because, I was the best darn supervisor the company had,” Melanie replied.

“And, being the best supervisor, what did you do that none of the other supervisors were able to do?”

“Oh, that was easy. I could see the future. I could tell when something was going to get screwed up, weeks ahead of time, and I could adjust the schedule to make sure we stayed productive. You know, if you reject some raw material because it’s out of spec, that means you have to shift some stuff around.”

“Yes, you were one of the best schedulers around.”

“What do you mean, were?” quizzed Melanie. “I still am.”

“Not exactly. Do you know why you were promoted from supervisor to manager last year?” -TF

Three Months Notice

Leave a reply

“This is all spilt milk, anyway,” Melanie snorted. “I know I have to buckle down, get out there, split up the work, then see if I can put an ad in the paper. I have gone through this before, third time this year.”

“I know,” I nodded. “I have read the exit interviews. Did you know that two of the three supervisors that left you this year had graduated from night school?”

Melanie’s eyes got wide. “Well, I knew they were going to school at night.”

“Did you know they had new jobs lined up three months before they graduated?”

“Well, I thought that was all talk. I didn’t pay any attention to that.”

“I know you didn’t pay attention. If you had paid attention, you would have three months advance time to prepare a new supervisor to take over. Now, you have to scramble. Melanie, the only reason you still have a job, here, as a manager, is that you are a pretty good scrambler. But, one day, you won’t be able to scramble and you’ll get sacked for a loss.” -TF

Knowing Enough to Predict

4 Replies

Thanks to Larry Stamper for his response to yesterday’s post about Melanie’s dilemma.
__

“Who is responsible for the team?” I asked again. “Who is responsible for the performance of the team, and all the things that affect performance?”

Melanie started looking around her office, as if someone was going to appear.

I continued. “If it’s not you, as the department manager, if it’s not you, then who?”

Melanie’s eyes stopped skirting the room. There was no hero that appeared. One last time, she floated her excuse, “But how am I responsible for one of my supervisors quitting?”

“That’s a very good question. How are you, as the manager, responsible for one of your supervisors quitting?”

“What, am I supposed to be clairvoyant?” Melanie snapped.

“That would be helpful,” I nodded. “But let’s say you don’t have supernatural powers. How could you, as the manager, know enough about your supervisors, to have predicted this departure?” -TF

I’m Not Accountable

1 Reply

Ring in the new year. Our next Leadership class in Fort Lauderdale begins January 9, 2008. Registration is open at www.workingleadership.com.
__

“I feel let down,” Melanie lamented. “I don’t know how I am going to explain this to the CEO. He has a short temper for this kind of thing. The worst part is, I’m just the messenger, but likely to get the brunt of it.”

Kyle, one of Melanie’s direct reports had just quit, leaving the rest of her team with more work and a tight deadline.

“Why do you feel you are just the messenger?” I asked.

Melanie moved her head back, almost startled. “I am not sure what you mean,” she said. “I’m not the one who quit. I am just the one who has to report it upstairs.”

“You’re Kyle’s manager?” I confirmed.

“Well, yes, but Kyle is the one who quit.”

“I understand Kyle is the one who quit and I am also curious to know who is responsible for the team that is now missing a member with a backlog that is going to crunch an important deadline?”

“But, Kyle is the one who quit,” Melanie protested. “You can’t hold me accountable for the pickle we’re in. I know I am the manager, but what am I supposed to do?”

The Manager’s Meeting

Leave a reply

In response to Michelle’s comment to yesterday’s post.

Question:

Will you expand upon the idea of planning like a democracy? Democracy implies to me that decisions are up for a vote and majority wins.

I am certainly all for a manager soliciting the best advice from his team, but ultimately the manager must have the authority to decide, as it is the manager who is accountable for the output of the team.

My experience is that teams are OK with the ultimate decision being that of their manager, as long as they know this upfront. Employees advise and recommend, but the manager decides.

Conversely, when a manager says or implies he’s running a democracy and the majority recommends something that the manager ultimately overrules, the team feels betrayed – and rightfully so.

Your thoughts?

Response:

In his book Driving Force, Peter Schutz characterizes the distinction between planning and implementation using analogies to organizational processes of dictatorship and democracy. His distinction is to make the point that most managers reverse the process, making decisions like a dictator and then wondering why the implementation is wrought with democratic slowness.

For implementation to be competitive, it requires the streamline efficiencies analogous to those found in a dictatorship. In implementation, there is seldom time for discussion, divergent opinions or tactful instruction.

To implement in this way, however, requires the planning process to incorporate processes analogous to those found in democracies. Planning must include the participation of those stakeholders in discussion, alternatives, contingencies, related issues, including the impact on all parties.

Your question centers around the specific accountabilities in the process of decision making. You are correct, the manager must make and be held accountable for the decision. And in fact, team members who participated in the process do not have to agree with the decision; they only have to agree to support the implementation of the decision made by the manager. It is their participation that is critical. People will support a world they help to create.

Elliott Jaques (Requisite Organization) goes so far as to rename the weekly team meeting to the weekly manager’s meeting to clarify the accountability.

Execute Like a Dictator

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:

I have been with the company for only 7 months now, and am very thankful I’ve found this site.

The biggest problem I face is three years of rapid growth in a family owned company. The culture is not keeping up with the changes in methods required to handle the increased volume. People still are working from memory instead of set processes, and are reluctant to train others in what they were solely responsible for years. Trying to force these changes seems to only increase turnover.

How can I influence my “older,” and most valued for technical skills, employees to change their ways of thinking?

Response:

If you continue to force these changes, two things might happen that will solve your situation. Turnover will eventually remove the resistance. The inevitable recession (Q1-2009) will reduce your volume so you won’t need to worry about it.

In the meantime, think about these two things, planning and execution. Of the two, which is more difficult?

Flawless execution, to the fundamental processes, with speed and accuracy is best accomplished under a form of organization government known as a dictatorship; tyrannical may be the most effective. (BTW, you cannot be the dictator).

But, to be able to execute flawlessly, requires a planning process to support it. And this planning process must be created under a very different form of government, a democracy. I know it is slow, requires participation, accommodation, discussion with divergent points of view, but it is absolutely necessary.

Plan like a democracy, execute like a dictatorship. It sounds as if you have things backwards. You are planning like a dictator, and you are experiencing democratic execution. You are dictating and forcing processes, but the execution is slow, with much discussion (grumbling), divergent points of view and resistance.

You have to reverse the process. Call a meeting. Explain the situation. You have increasing volume and the need for greater speed. Tell them the meeting will reconvene in twenty four hours, at which time, you will listen to their plan to handle the increased volume. Adjourn the meeting.

This message was brought home to me by Peter Schutz. You can read more about him in a post from November 10, 2006, Winning Depends on It. -TF

The System is the Problem

1 Reply

“Well, we run a pretty complicated system, here,” Derrick said. “If I had to design the system, the people system, I would really have to sit down and flow chart it out.”

“Is it all about getting the work done?” I asked.

“No, not really,” Derrick struggled. “It’s not just getting the work done, often it’s the way we get the work done. I need dedicated supervisors to just make sure the work is flowing, that it doesn’t get hung up, and that the work product meets our customers’ specs.”

“Is it just about making sure the work gets done, on time, on spec?”

“No, you can get the work done on time, on spec and still lose a ton of money,” Derrick answered. “We also have to think about efficiency. That is why our systems are so important.”

“So, is it all about getting the work done, on time, on spec in an efficient way, according to a system?” I asked.

“You would think so,” Derrick nodded. “But one thing I have noticed, when we get a system humming, its momentum begins to wreak havoc on another system. Like sales, as soon as we get our sales system humming, our volume picks up and outstrips our capacity to produce. So we ramp up our capacity to produce and that outstrips our raw material flow. There always seems to be this major moving target that throws a monkey wrench into the works.

“All of these decisions are made by people, and they are all interdependent. You are right. The way I create this people system will have a dramatic effect not only on our ability to produce, but it will also impact the individual behavior of the players I have working in the system.

“I am beginning to wonder if many of the problems that I see between people and the problems I observe in performance or underperformance are caused more by the system and less by the people I am blaming things on.”

What is Necessary?

Leave a reply

“Where do we start?” I repeated. “If the system has the most impact in productivity, efficiency, anything connected to people working together, where do we start?”

Derrick looked at me blinking. “That’s a pretty big question,” he finally replied. “I think about a lot of things during the day, but to answer that question, I have to put almost everything else aside.”

“Yes, if you stripped everything else away, back to a blank sheet, how would you design the organizational system? What are the first things to think about?”

“Well, it has to go back to purpose,” Derrick nodded his head. “I am an entrepreneur. When I think about machinery, equipment, facilities, I only think about what is necessary to achieve the purpose. So, it gets back to vision and mission.”

“So, if you connect back to vision and mission, you would put in place only what is necessary?”

“Yes.”

“When you think about machines, equipment and facilities, what is necessary, is pretty easy. When you think about the people you will need, what do you think about?” -TF

System of Roles and Relationships

3 Replies

“It’s the system, Derrick,” I began. “If you imagine the relationships between Managers and their direct reports, between team members and their Managers-Once-Removed. If you can see these relationships as a system of people, do you think the structure of the system has anything to do with the way that people behave inside of this system?

“It’s the way that we define those relationships, define those roles. It’s the system. Unfortunately, most managers, most VPs, most Chief Executives never sit down to think about this structure, this system. And the system has the largest impact on things like productivity, efficiency and even morale.

“There are excellent systems and there are poor systems. Tell me, what do you think is the difference? Where should we look first?” -TF