Tag Archives: authority

Fix Accountability

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
You seem to think that when the manager is held accountable for the output of the team, it’s a game-changer. You seem to think this one idea has a significant impact on morale.

Response:
Mindset drives behavior. This is a central premise to culture. What we believe, the way we see the world, drives behavior.

When a manager believes the team is accountable for their own output, it creates a punitive, blaming mindset on the part of the manager. I often hear the refrain from one manager to another, “Well, did you hold them accountable?”

And I have to ask, “Accountable for what? And just what managerial behavior is involved in holding them accountable?”

Is it a matter of reprimand, jumping up and down and screaming? Is it a matter of volume, frequency? If I told you once, I told you a thousand times. At that point, I am convinced that I am talking to a manager who has no children.

Managers who engage in this behavior have a direct negative impact on team morale. Response is predictably fight, flight, freeze or appease.

But, when the manager is accountable for the output of the team, everything changes. A manager accountable for the output of the team will –

  • Take extreme care in the selection of who? is assigned to the project.
  • Will take extreme care in the training of team members assigned to the project.
  • Will take extreme care in the work instructions for the project.
  • Will take care to monitor the progress of work on the project.
  • Will take care in the coaching of team members who may struggle in connection with the project.

Why? Because the manager is accountable for the output of the team. The attitude, the mindset, moves the manager from blaming behavior to caring behavior. If this becomes the mindset of all the managers, the entire organization’s culture changes. We don’t need sensitivity training, or communication seminars. We just need to fix accountability with the manager.

Does the Feeling Create the Structure?

Leave a reply

“So, you want your team to feel like a family, at least an extended family?” I asked.

Andre was thoughtful. “You have heard the expression, familiarity breeds contempt? That is the behavior I see. Petty grievances. Subtle discord. You would think that, as a family, they would get along better and, in turn, be more productive. I want them to work together, collaborate, support each other, you know, real teamwork.”

“All, noble ideas. But, could there be a paradox? Could it be, that effective group collaboration, teamwork, does not stem from a feeling of family, but rather a clear recognition of individual team members, each with individual accountability in clearly defined working relationships? Could it be structure that creates the feeling, not the feeling that creates the structure?”

Not an Ideological Discussion

2 Replies

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

Object in Motion

Leave a reply

“You make it seem like I got promoted to manager was just happenchance,” Roberta said.

“In many ways, your appointment was just because you were standing in the right place at the right time, call it luck,” I replied. “But, luck alone will not sustain you as a manager. You now have the authority to make decisions and solve problems the way you would have them solved, but that does not mean you have the team behind you.”

Roberta turned pensive. “You mean, I might tell the team to do something in a certain way, or at a certain time, and the team might push back?”

“Most assuredly,” I smiled. “The bane of every manager is that the team almost always pushes back. It’s not necessarily out of malice. Or that the team thinks you are a dolt. Most pushback occurs because the team has its own way, its own methods, it own habits that are difficult to break.”

“So, just because I am the manager does not mean it’s my turn and I get my way?” Roberta asked, not as a question, but a statement of reality.

I answered anyway, nodding. “I think you get the picture. Your way may be the best way, but you are fighting momentum, object in motion stays in motion. It is your role to interrogate current methods, gather new methods and solicit input, so you can guide the team to the best decision. It is cumbersome in the short run, but the only way in the long run. If you force the short game, your term as a manager is already on the rocks.”

And, at the Bottom?

Leave a reply

“It still looks like a communication problem,” Nolan insisted. “They are in a meeting, they are talking. Yes, there is a checklist. That is what they are communicating about.”

“I will agree, there is communication, but that is not the problem. The problem is that there are no dumpsters on the job site to haul away the debris and your project gets delayed by a day.”

“But, they are talking about a checklist, it’s communication,” he continued to push back.

“Yes, they are talking about the items on the checklist, but I helped design that checklist,” I nodded. “What is at the bottom of the checklist?”

Nolan was trying to imagine the checklist and what checklist item was last on the list.

“Below the items on the list,” I directed.

It suddenly became clear. “You are right,” Nolan admitted. “At the bottom is a signature line for both the estimator and the project manager to sign. It’s not just a checklist, it’s a commitment list.”

“Not a communication problem,” I said. “It’s an accountability and authority issue.”

It’s a Box on a Checklist

Leave a reply

“What’s the name of the movie that said – What we have here is a failure to communicate?” Nolan asked.

“You are way too young to have seen Cool Hand Luke,” I replied. “So, what’s the problem?”

Nolan nodded, “We have a communication problem.”

“I don’t believe in communication problems,” I nodded back. “A breakdown in communication is only a symptom of the problem. So, again, what’s the problem?”

“The first part of every project is a demolition phase, to tear down what was already there. The crew shows up, tears things down, but there are no dumpsters to haul away the debris. The project manager says the estimator left the dumpsters off the bid package. The estimator says the project manager should have known because we have dumpsters on every project. Looks like a communication problem to me.”

“I don’t believe in communication problems and I don’t think you have one. What you have, is an accountability and authority issue. In the working relationship between your project manager and your estimator, they have a handoff meeting at the beginning of the project. That meeting is so predictable that you have a checklist to make sure that everything is covered. I would bet that somewhere on that checklist is the word dumpster.”

“You are right,” Nolan said. “But they didn’t talk about it, AND it wasn’t included in the bid package.”

“Look,” I stared at Nolan, “you have an estimator, a project manager and a checklist in a meeting. In that meeting, what is the accountability of the estimator and what is the accountability of the project manager?  It is up to you to define that.”

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.”