"How do you talk about discretionary judgment in the Job Description?" Corina asked.

"Right at the top," I replied. "And attached to each Key Result Area."

"Okay, I have a supervisor position. The Key Result Areas are:

• Scheduling
• Equipment Maintenance
• Safety
• Production

"The prescribed duties are easy," Corina explained. "The supervisor has to post the schedule, maintain the equipment, prevent time-lost accidents and meet the production schedule. How do you figure in discretionary judgment?"

"The first element to establish is the Time Span of Discretion. How long do you, as the Manager, expect the team member to be able to make routine decisions (using their discretionary judgment) without having to come to you for direction? And that Time Span may be different in each Key Result Area.

"Let's start with scheduling. How far into the future do you expect your supervisor to schedule your team members in their work assignments?"

Corina squinted, "I believe next week's schedule is always posted the Wednesday before."

"And what about the week after that, and two weeks out and three weeks out?"

"Well, those aren't posted, but the supervisor has them in a notebook on his desk. They're not finalized because some people may have vacation, or the production schedule may require overtime."

"So, the supervisor is looking out four weeks into the future, using his discretionary judgment, making decisions about work assignments based on things like vacation and production schedules. Would you say the Time Span of Discretion is about four weeks?"

"Yes," Corina began to nod. "It's not just that the supervisor posts the schedule on Wednesday. To do an effective job, it's the discretionary decisions being made four weeks out, in his notebook, looking ahead." -TF

"Good work, so far," I said. "If things work out this way."

"Well, it's a plan," Miguel replied.

"What if things don't work out this way?"

Miguel closed his eyes, trying to visualize something he had not considered. When he opened his eyes, I could tell he had drawn a blank.

"You expect things to occur, your customers to want a certain product line and your volume of orders to reach a specific threshold. What will you do if these things don't happen?" I continued.

Miguel shifted in his chair. "I know. I was thinking, as I put this plan together, am I working to finish the plan just to get it done? Or am I really thinking through different scenarios. This year already seems a bit weird. Sales have been sluggish even though we have really been working our bids."

"So, what do you think?" I asked.

"I think I need to spend some more time playing the what-if game."

Originally published December 23, 2005.

As Matthew looked across the manufacturing floor, the machines stood silent, the shipping dock was clear. Outside, the service vans were neatly parked in a row. Though he was the solitary figure, Matthew shouted across the empty space.

“Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night.”

He reached for the switch and the mercury vapors went dark. He slid out the door and locked it behind.
—
We hope you all have a wonderful holiday. Management Skills Blog will return on January 2, 2008.

Don't forget that our Leadership program kicks off the New Year on January 9, 2008. Register now at www.workingleadership.com.

In response to Michelle's comment to yesterday's post.

Question:

Will you expand upon the idea of planning like a democracy? Democracy implies to me that decisions are up for a vote and majority wins.

I am certainly all for a manager soliciting the best advice from his team, but ultimately the manager must have the authority to decide, as it is the manager who is accountable for the output of the team.

My experience is that teams are OK with the ultimate decision being that of their manager, as long as they know this upfront. Employees advise and recommend, but the manager decides.

Conversely, when a manager says or implies he's running a democracy and the majority recommends something that the manager ultimately overrules, the team feels betrayed - and rightfully so.

Your thoughts?

Response:

In his book Driving Force, Peter Schutz characterizes the distinction between planning and implementation using analogies to organizational processes of dictatorship and democracy. His distinction is to make the point that most managers reverse the process, making decisions like a dictator and then wondering why the implementation is wrought with democratic slowness.

For implementation to be competitive, it requires the streamline efficiencies analogous to those found in a dictatorship. In implementation, there is seldom time for discussion, divergent opinions or tactful instruction.

To implement in this way, however, requires the planning process to incorporate processes analogous to those found in democracies. Planning must include the participation of those stakeholders in discussion, alternatives, contingencies, related issues, including the impact on all parties.

Your question centers around the specific accountabilities in the process of decision making. You are correct, the manager must make and be held accountable for the decision. And in fact, team members who participated in the process do not have to agree with the decision; they only have to agree to support the implementation of the decision made by the manager. It is their participation that is critical. People will support a world they help to create.

Elliott Jaques (Requisite Organization) goes so far as to rename the weekly team meeting to the weekly manager's meeting to clarify the accountability.

Picking up our discussion about Results vs. Effectiveness, Kurt posed the question.

Question:
Results can be measured, how do you measure effectiveness?

Response:
Effectiveness is a matter of judgment. Effectiveness is a matter of managerial judgment. How well does Rudy perform in the achievement of the desired goal? Given all the ins and outs, the difficulties faced, the unanticipated, unplanned monkey wrenches that get in the way, how well does Rudy perform?

This is a matter of managerial judgment.

Given that:
1. Any task (or role) requires a certain capability.
2. The person assigned has the appropriate capability.

The judgment is whether the person is committing their full capability to the task (or role).

This is NOT a "matter of counting outputs, super credits for super outputs, or penalties for lateness or sub-standard quality." * This is about bringing their full capability to the completion of the task.

It is the job of the manager to observe and account for all the surrounding circumstances and make this most important judgment. And it is precisely this judgment that most managers avoid.

*Elliott Jaques, Requisite Organization, 1989.