Tag Archives: decision making

Illusion of Control

“You say that the best on your team, given a wrinkle, a bump or a calamity simply make it go away,” I nodded. “But, you said, you only had a precious few. What makes the difference?”

“When I first started out as a manager, I thought I was in control,” Madison started. “I thought I was the one who brilliantly solved all the hard problems. I thought I was the one who made all the hard decisions.”

“And?”

“My first realization is that control is simply an illusion. I was never in control,” she replied. “Oh, I could plan, I could train my team in our best practices. I could speed up our output, increase our quality standards, but I was never in control.”

“What was the lesson and how did it arrive in your lap?” I asked.

“Easy,” Madison replied. “The harder I tried to control, the worse things got. Even things like pace. I would try to control the pace, increase the rate of output, but the more I leaned in, the slower things got. I would see someone on the team do something stupid, so I would take away their authority to do it. So, instead of leaping on a problem, the team would hang out waiting for me to solve it. It was definitely passive-aggressive on their part, but I am the one who created the monster.”

“So, what was the tipping point?” I wanted to know.

“One day, everything stopped,” she said. “We ran out of a raw material and production ground to a halt. I was out visiting a customer, so I didn’t find out until the next morning.”

“No one thought to call you?”

“They were scared to call me. I was such a control freak. Bottom line, we had more material received on our shipping dock, but the paperwork hadn’t been processed, so no one dared open the crate.”

“And so you yelled at them?” I laughed.

“That’s when I realized I had to delegate. And, I don’t mean delegate in the classic sense of getting stuff off my plate. I mean delegate decision making. I got the team together and asked what would have solved the problem and kept the line going? Two people raised their hands with suggestions. I gave those two people expressed authority to open an unprocessed crate.”

“But, wouldn’t you lose control of inventory on hand?” I pressed.

“For an afternoon,” Madison was clear. “Our Bill of Materials system would have backed into the number based on finished assemblies, we could reconcile with the paperwork that would eventually be processed and we would not have lost an entire afternoon of production. More importantly, I now had two people on my team who could make the decision without me. Forever.”

Not-So-Intelligent

“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.”

The Friction Inside

“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.”

Permission and Competence

“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.”

Authority and Competence

“So, accountability and authority go together?” Nadia asked.

“You cannot have the accountability for an outcome, unless you have the authority to make the decision that goes with it,” I nodded. “You cannot have the authority to make the decision without the accountability for the outcome. So, yes, they go together. One more element, however. Do not give someone the authority to make a decision for which they do not have the competence to make.”

“What do you mean,” she asked.

“Do not give a shipping clerk the authority to make the decision on an engineering spec for a raw material. The shipping clerk may receive it from a vendor, but it is likely the competence to determine the correct specification for the part lies with someone else. Be careful who you delegate authority to.”

The Illusion of Control

I walked by Suzanne’s office. “Why the long face?” I said.

“Ya know,” she replied, “I thought being CEO would get easier as time went by.”

“And?” I asked.

“But, it’s not. At first, it was great. I was the grand Poo-Bah. Everyone deferred to me. I could snap my fingers and a dozen people jumped. If something went wrong, I could always find someone to blame it on. Dominion over everything. Power over…”

“Go on,” I prompted.

“That was when we were small. The power had an addictive quality. Then we got bigger, things became more structured. Power gave me control, but now I think I am losing both power and control.” Suzanne got quiet.

“Nothing like a little power and the illusion of control,” I smiled.

“Easy for you to say,” she sneered. “I just don’t have the bandwidth to clamp down harder, to get things back in control.”

“Suzanne, what happens to the speed of decision making if all decisions have to go through the CEO?”

She thought, then nodded. “Slows down.”

“Or stops,” I added. “And what happens to the speed of problem solving if all problems have to be solved by the CEO?”

Suzanne picked up the pattern. “Slows down or stops.”

“And what happens to control when decision making slows down? Better or worse?”

She just nodded, pursing her lips.

“It’s counterintuitive,” I said. “The more you clamp down, the less control you have. We misunderstand this concept called delegation. We think delegation is to get some menial tasks off our plate. What we need to delegate are not tasks. What we need to delegate is decision making and problem solving. Only then will we be in greater control.”

Good and Bad Advice

Who do you listen to for advice? There is good advice and bad advice. Some advice leads to abject failure, some advice leads to success. What is the difference?

Between failure and success is average. What advice leads to average success? Action that leads to high performance is different than action that leads you to average performance.

If you know the difference between good advice and bad advice, maybe you don’t need advice at all. Perhaps you need an analytical process that allows you to truly understand the problem, to understand the drivers of the problem. Part of analysis is to determine what you want, what the best outcome could be. In the middle is the collection of alternatives. And somewhere in there is the best alternative, one that avoids the contributors to failure and opens a pathway to a reasonable chance of success.

Accountability and Authority

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.

Focused

“You are right,” Byron continued. “The things that hurt us now, are decisions we made a couple of years ago when times were good. It seemed like a good idea at the time. We didn’t think very hard about some of our bone-headed moves.”

“And, now?” I asked.

“And, now we have to get lean. Maybe really lean. It may get worse. We have to be able to take a couple more punches and still be able to maneuver, be able to take advantage of opportunities, but it’s difficult.”

“What is so difficult about it?”

“Well, now, everything has to be focused on a result. If it doesn’t produce a result, it has to go. It’s not pleasant. In many cases, we have to learn to say NO! In the past, we tried to figure out what TO do. Now we have to make decisions on what NOT to do.”

It’s Not About the Button

Vicki was stumped.

“Your team member is in the break room, having a soda, thinking about a problem in his work area that needs to be solved,” I repeated. “Would you call that work?”

“I want to say no,” Vicki struggled. “He is not at his work station working, so he can’t be working. I know, he is not being productive, so even though he is thinking, he is not being productive, so he is not working.”

“And if he does not solve this problem he is thinking about, his productivity will stop,” I continued.

“You want me to say yes, he is working, but it feels like no,” Vicki insisted.

“Vicki, do you pay your machine operator to move a piece of metal into position and to press a button to cut the metal? Because, if that was it, you could hire a robot. Or do you pay your machinist for his judgment of how raw materials are organized to enter the work area, the cleanliness of the scrap produced by the machine, the attention paid to the preventive maintenance to keep the machine operating?”

Vicki finally responded in a long slow sentence. “I pay him for his ability to solve problems and make decisions, not to push the button.”