Tag Archives: authority

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 and Competence

Leave a reply

“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.”

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.”

More Control or Less

Leave a reply

“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?”

Dungeons, Dragons and Demons

Leave a reply

“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?”

Broccoli and Power

Leave a reply

“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?”

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.