“That makes sense,” Nadia agreed. “I have been guilty of empowering my team to do things they did not have the capability to do. Didn’t turn out so well.”
“Yes, that weasel word of empowerment has very little to do with granting permission,” I replied. “Empowerment, or rather authority to make a specific decision has more to do with competence. It is competence that creates authority, not permission.”
“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.”
“It is very difficult to cede my power as a CEO,” Suzanne shook her head from side to side. “It’s my company, my accountability.”
“You are still accountable. All crumbs lead to the CEO,” I said. “And, what changes when you see your company, not as a hierarchy of power, but, a hierarchy of competence?”
“First of all, I cannot promote people into positions because of their seniority, their loyalty or their current position of power,” she was thinking out loud, knowing I was listening.
“Promote people to a position of what?” I asked.
“A position of authority,” Suzanne replied.
“Authority to do what?” I pressed.
“Authority to make decisions,” she relented.
“Now, we are getting somewhere,” I smiled. “You begin to see your organization through the lens of competence. You cannot promote someone to a position of authority, to make decisions, unless they are competent to make those decisions. If they are competent to make those decisions, are you, as the CEO in more control or less control?”
“If I could change the mindset of the ringleader, I could change the mindset of the team,” Ryker thought out loud. “She does not believe we can be successful in the project. It’s a limiting belief in herself.”
“So, she has an internal demon that prevents her from signing on to the project? The very same project that you already promised the customer?” I asked.
“I’m not going back to the customer to renegotiate my commitment,” Ryker was adamant.
“So, let’s talk about internal demons that reside in the mind of your ringleader,” I nodded. “But, before that, let’s talk about the internal demons you have to face.”
“What do you mean?” Ryker was puzzled. “I am not the one confused here. I already signed the contract. I’m fully committed.”
“Yes, but you have doubts,” I smiled. “You are the manager of the team, but you feel it’s important to change the ringleader’s mindset about the project. You feel that not doing so will jeopardize the success of the project. You have doubts about your own leadership ability in the face of the team. You have your own demons to slay. Who is the real leader of your team?”
This put an abrupt halt in the flow of the discussion. Ryker was thinking. “You are right. I do not see myself with the power to pull this off. I mean, I have the authority, but the team has the power.”
“And, what is it about yourself that makes you think this way?” I wanted to know. More accurately, I wanted Ryker to know. “You suggest that changing the mindset of the team’s ringleader has more impact on the team than changing your own mindset. What is the demon that you have to slay?”
“So how do I get my team to the point where they believe in what is necessary? How do I make them believe?” Erica was stumped.
“Indeed,” I said. “If your team doesn’t believe it is necessary, you cannot make them believe. Sure, you can trick them with a bonus or maybe a plaque, but it is still a trick.”
“Like your broccoli story,” Erica remembered, “I have the authority as a parent to command broccoli, but my child has the power to determine if broccoli will be eaten?”
“Yes,” I nodded. “If you feel the need to compel behavior, does that say anything about the power others have over you?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Okay, here is what I want to happen,” Gordon explained. His description was thorough. He painted a good picture.
“I can see your vision,” I replied. “How do your people see this?”
“That’s the problem. I think I explained it well, in the memo I sent out, but they don’t seem to get it. For some of my team, I don’t even think they read it, and I get a little heartburn from that.”
“So, you haven’t figured it out, yet?” I asked.
“Figured what out?” Gordon’s head tilted.
“As interesting as I think I am, I finally figured it out. Nobody listens to me. As interesting as you think you are, nobody listens to you.”
“But, I’m the boss! They have to listen to me.”
“Gordon, you have a kid at home, right? Do you, as the parent, have the authority, at dinner, to demand that broccoli be eaten?”
Gordon sat up. “Well, yes I do.”
“But your kid has the power to determine whether broccoli will, in fact, be eaten.”