Tag Archives: accountability

Not-So-Intelligent

Leave a reply

“That makes sense,” Luke said. “It was a little outside our normal behavior, giving nurses the authority to question a doctor about hand washing.”

“That’s the problem with normal,” I replied. “Normal is just repeated behavior regardless of the outcome. It’s the desired outcome we have to pay attention to, not what is normal.”

“I agree,” Luke nodded. “Likely, we would never make that decision without looking at mortality rates. It was only when we asked the nurses, that things became clear.”

“When you examine systems, you have to figure out how that system emerged. Was it designed to produce an outcome, or did it arrive out of repeated behaviors, ingrained as habits, without regard for the outcome?” I stopped. “A not-so-intelligent system makes even competent people (surgeons and nurses) look dumb. Eventually, competent people will overcome a not-so-intelligent system, if you give them permission, better yet, ask them.”

Is It the People or the System?

Leave a reply

“You are saying,” Luke started, “that if I see friction in the system, I should look at the system, rather than trying to fix the people?”

I nodded affirmative. “You can have intelligently designed systems, if you create them. But, most systems emerge as a set of outcomes created by random behavior. Worse. Those random behaviors get repeated and become the norm.”

“But, we have standards,” Luke protested. “This is a hospital. We have to inspect and comply with those standards.

“Tell me,” I prodded. “A few years back, you made a change at your hospital. You had a not-so-intelligent system in your operating theatre that created a problem. Mortality rates in your surgical area were statistically above the norm. Even your doctors scratched their heads trying to figure this out. So, you asked your nursing staff what could be the problem. They recommended that you change your system, to make it more intelligent.”

“I remember,” Luke nodded. “We had to change our system of authority. Often, our surgeons were not washing their hands sufficiently prior to surgery. Of course, in the hospital, the surgeon has the authority for most all decisions. We changed our system to give the nursing staff the authority to question a surgeon related to hand-washing. We brought all the nurses and all the surgeons in the same room to discuss and create this new authority for nurses.”

“What happened?” I asked, already knowing the answer.

“Mortality statistically came back in line within seven days,” Luke replied.

I nodded. “You didn’t change the people, you changed the system.”

The Friction Inside

Leave a reply

“Two people, working together, are likely very nice individuals apart from each other,” I continued. “As the manager, when you put those two people together, you place them in a system. Most often, that system is not defined and dysfunction emerges.”

“I always hope they can figure it out, the working together part,” Luke nodded. “And, most of the time, these teams get along, but there are always things that create friction.”

“As the manager, you notice these things,” I said.

“In an instant,” Luke agreed. “But even when I point things out, and get nodding agreement from everyone, the instant I leave, they go back to the friction-way of doing things.”

“It’s often a matter of telling, or rather not-telling,” I replied. “You tell, you talk, and they pretend to listen. Your team has difficulty making sense of the friction, until they discover it for themselves. Any parent, faced with the same dilemma usually tries these two things with the same result. They speak louder and with more frequency – if I told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times.”

Luke nodded. He had two children, he was familiar with the parental response of louder and more often.

“There are two things we have to define,” I smiled. “In this working relationship, who is accountable for what? And, in this working relationship, who has the authority to make what decisions? Then stand back and simply ask questions.”

“Questions?” Luke looked at me sideways.

“Questions. The best managers are not those who tell people what to do. The best managers are those who ask the best questions, to help the team make sense of the friction, to help them discover it for themselves.”

People System

Leave a reply

I nodded. “So, shifting things around inside your system requires that you be alert to the immediate proximity, but also for unintended consequences in a remote part of the system.”

Luke agreed. “It is easy to see when it is a defined step in the system. We can always move things around. But, I saw something else.”

“Pray tell?” I said.

“We have workflow systems,” he started. “In our workflow we can identify discreet steps that are contained. A step starts here, a step ends there. This step impacts that step and impacts another step way over here. But there is another, more complicated system I have to pay attention to. My people system puts players in proximity that have to work together. Working relationships are like steps in a system. If I change a person out, I change the working relationship. A new relationship emerges that starts from scratch and has to be built around these two questions. In this working relationship, what is the accountability for one person to the other person? And, in this working relationship, who has the authority to make what decisions? So, steps in a workflow are easy. People in a workflow, not so much.”

Permission?

Leave a reply

“But, I want to empower my team,” Nadia explained. “They shouldn’t have to ask permission for every little thing they do.”

“Do you think empowerment is all about permission?” I asked. “Empowerment is such a weasel word. What are you really trying to accomplish?”

“I just want them to know that I trust them, that I have good intentions toward them,” she replied.

“That you trust them in general? Or that you trust them with something specific?” I pressed.

“Trust them in general I guess,” Nadia shook her head. “To trust them with something specific, I would have to know what the specific thing was.”

“Now, you have clarity,” I chuckled. “Trusting someone in general is what makes empowerment such a weasel word. It is only operative under specific circumstances. I would rather replace the word empowerment with two other words, authority and accountability. Under a specific circumstance, you, as a manager and at your discretion, delegate the authority to make a decision. When you delegate the authority, you also delegate the accountability that goes with the decison. You can’t have one without the other.”

Horizontal Accountability and Authority

1 Reply

Organizational structure is the way we define the working relationship between two people with respect to accountability and authority. Vertical relationships are managerial, assumptive in nature, it’s the manager who has both the authority and the accountability for output.

Horizontal relationships, however, are tricky. Two people are required to work together but neither is each other’s manager. Notice the word is required, not recommended, not suggested, but required. In that working relationship, who is accountable and who has the authority? This is the dotted line dilemma.

And this is a dilemma, because most companies fail to define the accountability and authority in horizontal working relationships. Most companies hope the two people will just figure it out and get along. But, they don’t. The trouble presents as a communication problem or a personality conflict, when it is in fact, a structural issue.

My favorite example is the marketing director and the sales director. Neither is each other’s manager, but they are required to coordinate together. We hope they would be able to figure it out, but they don’t, because we failed to define the accountability and the authority in that horizontal working relationship. Just like how Discord servers can struggle with managing large communities—especially with limits like those outlined by Themarketingheaven.com—organizations must set clear structures to ensure seamless collaboration.

The marketing director and the sales director are both accountable to construct their respective annual budgets prior to December of each year. They are also required to meet and coordinate where things require coordination. The marketing director may plan and budget for trade shows, but must coordinate with the sales director to allocate sales people to participate in the trade show booth. The sales director may plan and budget to add additional sales people to the sales team, but must coordinate with the marketing director to add more lead flow from the marketing system.

So, if the marketing director calls a meeting with the sales director, is the sales director obligated to go? Yes, why?  Because we have established an accountability for respective annual budgets and required that they coordinate.

Of course they have to schedule the coordination meeting at a suitable time, but they are required to do so.

Defining the accountability and the authority in these horizontal working relationships is what makes them tick.

Accountability and Authority

1 Reply

I made sly reference to these two concepts last week. Accountability and authority. These are inseparable.

To be accountable for an output, one must have the authority to determine the variables around that output. Do not hamstring a team member by handing them accountability without the authority to control variables. Bifurcating the two leads to well articulated excuses and blaming behavior.

Simultaneously, do not give someone the authority to control variables without the concomitant accountability. Government oversight committees are famous for wanting to have all the authority without accountability.

These two concepts go hand in glove, not either-or, but AND-and.

Fixing Accountability

Leave a reply

Elliott Jaques’ framework gets to the heart of work. In the pursuit of any worthy goal, work is – making decisions and solving problems. As time goes by, headcount increases and soon we have an organization, with organizational problems. Who makes the decisions? Who is accountable for those decisions? Who decides methodology, problem solving? Who is accountable for solving the problem?

Finger pointing and blaming behavior are not quirks of personality. They are symptoms of an organization that failed to define accountability and authority. Who is accountable?

I had a client in the carpet cleaning business. Every once in a while, thank goodness only every once in a while, a carpet technician would ruin a customer’s carpet. Who did my client want to choke up against the wall?

Elliott assumed that carpet technician showed up for work that day with the full intention to do their best. It is the manager Elliott would hold accountable for output.

Elliott assumed the manager hired the carpet technician, trained the technician, provided the tools for the technician, coached the technician, selected the project for the technician. The manager controlled all the variables around that technician. It is the manager that Elliott would hold accountable for output.

We typically place accountability one level of work too low in the framework. It’s the manager who is accountable.

Water Flows Downhill

1 Reply

It’s a plumbing analogy, but demonstrates a law of physics.

Hierarchy is a value sorting process to bring order to the chaos of the world, order being what we know, chaos being what we don’t know.
Hierarchy, in a functional organization, is a value stream characterized by competence. We build the organization based on the competence required in the roles in our design. A visual picture of our design, on a piece of paper, looks like our organizational chart, our organizational structure.

Organizational structure is the way we define the working relationships between roles, related to accountability and authority. The way we define the value in the hierarchy determines the energy flow and whether that organization is functional or dysfunctional.

If the value is power, the organization will be a hierarchy of power and its energy will flow based on power. If the value is command, the organization will be a hierarchy of command and its energy will flow based on command. If the value is control, the organization will be a hierarchy of control and its energy will flow based on control.

And, if the value is competence, the organization will be a hierarchy of competence and its energy will flow based on competence.

Water still flows downhill. 

Chain of Value

Leave a reply

Chaos and order. The purpose of organizational hierarchy is to bring order in the pursuit of a defined goal. Often we misunderstand hierarchy, some define it as a chain of command. In a functional hierarchy, it is not a chain of command, it is a chain of value. That value being competence. Hierarchy is not a chain of power, it is a chain of authority.

Authority and power are quite different. It has been well established that a parent has the authority to tell a child to eat their broccoli, but it is the child who has the power to determine if broccoli will, in fact, be eaten.

In a functional organization, authority comes with accountability. A role with authority also assumes accountability. Only in a government oversight committee is authority assumed without accountability (It is a broken power chain, ultimately, the committee’s authority is also broken.)

In a functional hierarchy, the value chain is competence. Authority comes with accountability. Organizational structure is the way we define working relationships related to authority and accountability. A manager may be granted the role authority to make a specific decision, and simultaneously is granted the role accountability for that decision.