Tag Archives: accountability

Slow and Fast

Leave a reply

“I’m curious,” Millie announced.

“That’s a good mind-frame,” I replied.

“How come every time I get the team together to talk about a new method or procedure, when we are done talking, they go back to the way we did it before?” she asked.

“I assume you got some feedback and agreement at the meeting?” I replied with a question.

“Well, no one objected,” she said. “They nodded. At least they pretended they paid attention.”

“And, they pretended to do things the new way, while going about things the old way?” I smiled. “How long have they been doing things the old way and how long have they pretended to do things the new way?”

Millie pretended to think, but her answer was quick, nodding, “The old way, as far as I can remember. The new way, three days since the meeting.”

“And, so, what is your insight?” I asked.

“I can presume they haven’t had the time to assimilate the new way with the old way. But this change is so different, it’s not a matter of folding in a new method. They have to literally stop doing some old things and start doing some new things.”

“And I assume,” I continued to smile, “that three days is not quick enough for you?”

“Look,” she stared directly, “the new method will be slower at first before it picks up. Once they get used to the new method, it should double throughput. I want to get through the slow part as fast as we can.”

“I appreciate your impatience,” I said calmly. “Sometimes, you have to go slow, so you can go fast.”

This podcast just dropped yesterday, all about Elliott (53:00).
KPI Fireside Chat, hosted by Keith Norris, with guest Tom Foster.

Not an Ideological Discussion

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I have been told that my org structure is misguided, that I need to flatten my organization out, that my various teams should be able to make their own decisions. What gives?

Response:
What seems like an off-the-cuff remark about the way you run things, turns out to be a bit more complicated. The organizational structure is not something dictated by a friend, or a consultant, based on some ideology about modern companies and the new look of the corporation.

Organizational structure is simply the way we define the working relationships between people. If we draw it on a piece of paper, it looks like an org chart. If you give me your org chart, it tells me how you think about those working relationships with respect to these two questions –
Who has the accountability for output?
Who has the authority to make what decisions?

Your org structure defines those two questions according to your business model. Your business model will guide you to the structure you need based on the complexity of the decisions you make and the problems you solve. Easy decisions and easy problems don’t need much structure. But no one builds a growing business based on easy decisions and easy problems, things become more complex. The complexity of the work provides clues to the structure you need.

How complex is your business? If your company replaces residential roofs, one project at a time, with no overlap between projects, things are pretty simple. Add a second story to that residential roof and suddenly you have more safety issues. Simultaneous contracts add more complexity with scheduling, crew capacity, material receiving and staging. Shift to commercial roofing and things stack up faster. Professional buyers enter the picture. OSHA oversight and compliance. Insurance and risk management. Code compliance and risk retention. Cash flow and credit facilities. Operational and quality assurance systems. Warranty and maintenance contracts. There are multiple levels of complexity, all part of the business model which dictates the structure required.

You can remove the management layers in your company, but the complexity remains. You should have no more layers in your company than is required by your business model. But removing layers will leave some decisions to be made by people who do not have the capability to make those decisions. Removing layers will leave some problems to be solved by people without the capability to solve those problems.

Organizational structure is not an ideological discussion.

When You Allow It

Leave a reply

“David,” she said, “you are one of the most capable people in this program. Your work is genuinely good. Your analysis is rigorous when you allow it to be.” She paused. “You don’t allow it to be, often enough, because allowing it means staking a position that someone might disagree with. And you learned, this program taught you, very effectively, that the risk of being wrong in public is greater than the cost of being right in private. So, you seek consensus. You look for permission. You ask people like me what you should do so that when it goes wrong you can escape accountability.”

Premeditated Culture, now available on Amazon.

Which Truth?

Leave a reply

“It’s like they fight all the time,” Sheldon explained. “Each manager thinks they know how to run the whole company, if I would just step out of the way.”

“What’s happening, explain the friction?” I asked.

“Once again, the project was late and when it was delivered to the client, it didn’t work. Pretty simple explanation. It’s the fix that’s complicated. When we only did one project at a time, everything seemed to work well. On time, on budget, never missed a beat. Then we got two projects, three. We now have seven projects in-house and they all have problems, missed deadlines, cost overruns and quality issues.”

“And?”

“The project manager is ripping his hair out. The response he is getting from all the other managers is a mix of blame and excuses,” Sheldon shrugged.

“What do they say?” I prompted.

“Want a list?” Sheldon chuckled.

  • The Sales Manager says he asked Engineering for timetable before he promised a delivery date.
  • The Engineering Manager says there were too many changes in the scope of work.
  • The Ops Manager says the timetable from Engineering was unrealistic.
  • The Accounting Manager says the budget didn’t allow for any profit.
  • The Marketing Manager says that if he had known the priority of the client, he would have put more people into the product rollout.

“So, who is right?” I smiled.

“That’s the problem. They are all right. Every word is true.”

In Sync

Leave a reply

“I truly want to make my team happy,” Melanie wished out loud.

“Please don’t focus on making team members happy,” I replied. “Being happy may be a byproduct, but what we want is engagement. What does it take to keep team members engaged in the work that we do?  As managers, we do things instinctively to get the work done, without thinking about the longer term impact of engagement. Getting the work done is short term, to meet the weekly metrics.” I paused. “We need to think about getting the work done well for the next five years. We do that best with a team we can keep together, working in sync with each other.”

“We almost always meet our metrics,” she said. “But, it feels forced, overtime, uneven effort from some team members. I mean, we get there, but sometimes, it’s not pretty.”

“So, even if the team meets their metrics, but isn’t working in sync, where are you, as a manager?” I asked.

“That’s the word,” Melanie smiled. “Working in sync? I can force the team, but it requires me to be dominant, create pressure, in short, get the team to be compliant to the metrics. I am exhausted at the end of the day.”

“That is why, in building an organization,” I continued my thought, “it is not enough to have the right people in the right seats, we have to think about how the seats work together.”

“That sounds nice for an orchestra,” she chuckled, “but what about here, where we have to get some work done?”

I smiled back. “In every working relationship that we design, we have to think critically. In this working relationship, what are the accountabilities we expect? And, in this working relationship, who has the authority? Authority to make decisions and solve problems the way we would have them solved? It is the design of the structure that creates team member engagement. It is the design of the structure that creates flow, everyone working in sync.”

Real Problem

Leave a reply

“It’s all about connection,” Pablo said. “If a team member is connected closely with their manager, most likely they will remain engaged. If the team member becomes disconnected from their manager, or connected to a toxic manager, the job search has already begun.”

“Only the manager?” I asked.

“The manager relationship is the key, with a supporting cast of the team,” Pablo explained. “Conceptually, a manager’s accountability is simple (not easy). Create connection, prevent disconnection.”

“That’s the popularity of team exercises,” I said.

“The problem with exercises is just that. Exercises are exercises. They start up muscle memory, but if you really want to build a team, give them a real problem to solve. Stand back. Allow the team to struggle. In that struggle, you will see some things occur. Leadership will emerge, automatically. Leadership takes the form of restating the problem, clarifying the obstacles and laying down the challenge. If the problem is complex, it will require expertise in specific areas, team members will consult, rely on each other to help carry the burden. In essence, problem solving builds connection.”

A Context of Trust

Leave a reply

“Fixing accountability is the first step to creating a context of trust,” Pablo shifted. “When accountability is not clearly defined, or placed at the wrong level, mistrust begins a slow nuanced dance, often imperceptible. But it’s there. People begin to feel insecure about their own jobs, not sure where this career may or may not be taking them, squabbles emerge about equitable pay, stress among working relationships and blaming behavior.”
“Sounds like a bit of insecurity?” I ask. “Isn’t that why we do psychometric testing, to weed those people out?”
“People behave as people behave, in the context of their surroundings,” Pablo chuckled. “We think the success of a managerial system depends of the psychology of its individuals, when its success depends more on its design. Change the context, behavior follows. Go into a church or synagogue and you will see people sitting quietly, barely speaking. Does that mean they are all introverts and poor communicators? Go to a soccer stadium where a goal has just been scored and you will see people screaming, jumping up and down. Does that mean they are all extroverts with a boisterous personality. It’s all about context.”
Pablo stopped before he finished. “Fixing accountability is the first step to creating a context of trust.”

Without Profit

Leave a reply

“You continue to use the term managerial system,” I started. “What do you mean?”

“In the beginning, in a startup, every company is haphazard, organizing the work around the people they have. At some point, there is still work left over and the founder realizes work can no longer be organized around the people, we have to organize the people around the work. Specialized roles emerge. And, then those roles have to work together.”

“And the system?” I asked.

“Roles cannot be haphazard, working together cannot be haphazard, too much friction against profitability. I have seen companies work extremely hard and never make a profit. Eventually, they have to make a profit or the company dies (a long slow death exasperating death). For a company to survive and be profitable, they have to create a managerial system, what we call structure.”

“Structure?” I prompted.

“Organizational structure is simply the way we think about, often on paper, the accountability and the authority in the working relationships between people,” Pablo stopped. “Two types. Vertical managerial relationships and horizontal cross-functional relationships.”

“And this structure is important for profitability?” I clarified.

“Yes, and this structure is important for the sustained creative output of the people who work in the company. Because without that, the company will also die, become a corrosive institution where no one wants to work.” Pablo paused again. “To stay green and growing, the managerial system has to be vibrant and well-thought-out.”

Keeping Agreements

Leave a reply

“I wish my people would keep the promises they made,” Daniella lamented.

“How well do you keep your promises?” I asked.

“What do you mean,” she wanted to know.

“I was having a beer with a good friend who owned the bar,” I began the story. “As we finished, he reached in his pocket and pulled out some cash to pay for the beers. I asked him why, since he owned the bar, did he have to pay for his own beers? He looked at me and said, ‘I do not want to teach my employees how to steal.'”

I repeated my question. “How well do you keep your promises? The distance in which you keep your agreements, goes a long way to determine how well your team keeps theirs.”

What is Possible?

Leave a reply

“I just finished the org chart for my team,” Kayden announced, holding up a piece of paper with circles and arrows.

“I see that,” I replied. “Why do you think an org chart is important? It’s only a small team, 18 production people and two supervisors, then there is you.”

“You said it was important, remember?” Kayden was quick to respond.

I nodded. “Yes, I did. But, do you remember why?”

“So people will know who to report to,” he followed my nod.

“So, you think you were made manager so people could report to you?” I asked.

“Well, it does sound a little arrogant.”

“What is organizational structure?” I pressed. “I mean, we draw boxes on a page and connect them with lines. What does it all mean?”

“The lines connect people that work together,” Kayden floated.

“So, what? They work together. What do the lines mean? Look at your chart. Most of the lines are vertical and are connected to a supervisor or connected to you? What do the lines mean?”

“It’s the way we define the working relationships between people,” Kayden finally stammered.

“Now, we are getting somewhere. An org chart defines the working relationships between people. And, we have to forge the kind of relationships that move the company forward, with respect to these two things – Accountability and Authority. In every working relationship, who is accountable for what? And, in every working relationship, who has the authority to make decisions? The right working relationships determine what can be done, what is possible. The not-right working relationships lead us into counter-productive activity and thwart what is possible. That’s why an org chart helps us understand those working relationships.”