"Muriel is a line worker, who reports to her supervisor, Vince, who reports to me. Muriel has been here for six months. I am certainly not her supervisor, but I am the Manager Once Removed for her team. Her team is a very important element of my system," Sylvia explained.

"What's the problem?" I asked.

"I was talking to Muriel, just asking how things are going, about how she has adjusted to working here. That's when the fireworks started."

Sylvia had my curiosity. "Tell me more," I prompted.

"Her supervisor, Vince, remember that Vince reports to me. Vince walked by, interrupted us, began grilling me on our conversation. I tried to tactfully excuse Sylvia from the discussion, but she had a scared look on her face."

"What did Vince say?"

"I pulled him into my office so we could talk in private. He said that I was undermining his authority, that if I had anything to say to one of his team members, I needed to go through him and he would deliver the message. Otherwise, he said, Hands Off."

"So, it's okay to be a working manager?" Wes asked.

"In a small organization, it almost always happens that way," I replied. "As a manager, you may have four or five supervisors reporting to you. At the same time, you may have to supervise one of the processes yourself. It could be a matter of economics, or just that you cannot find the right person to fill the role."

"That's exactly the way it works, now." Wes looked relieved.

"But, there's a problem, being a part time manager and a part time supervisor," I warned.

The look of relief on Wes' face was temporary. He knew it was too good to be true. I waited.

"You're right. Being part time manager and part time supervisor, I feel like I am being pulled in too many different directions. One of my supervisors comes to me with a question and I can't listen, because I have my own work to do."

"And when you don't have time to listen, are you bringing value to the thinking and work of that supervisor who has a question?" -TF

"So, you are saying that's it's okay for one person to play more than one role in the company, since we are so small. We just don't have enough people to cover everything you've outlined." Wes was piecing this together, looking at the roles and the limited number of people he had available.

"That's why the smallest of companies need only focus on their product or service. They keep all of their performance standards in their heads, because they are the only ones doing the work," I replied.

"It's like a sole practitioner, a CPA or an attorney in a company of one. They alone are doing the work, so there is no need to document processes.

"It's only when that sole practitioner grows, adds people, that processes have to be established. Because now, other people are doing the work and those same performance standards must be maintained.

"At that point, there are really only two roles in the organization. The people who are doing the work and the (no longer sole) practitioner who makes sure the work gets done.

"At the same time the (no longer sole) practitioner is making sure the work gets done, you can almost bet he is also doing some of the work himself. The (no longer sole) practitioner is now playing two roles at the same time." -TF

As Wes studied the chart scrawled across the white board, I could see a question mark on his forehead. "It's all well and good, to say that this layer in the company does the work, and this layer, supervisors, makes sure the work gets done, and the next layer, managers, create the systems in the company." Wes stopped.

"But sometimes, I feel like I have to play a little bit of all of these roles. In some departments, we just can't afford to hire separate people to fill those roles. Sometimes, we have to play double duty."

"That's not unusual," I replied. "I find this chart is especially helpful for lean companies, like yours, where you can't afford to field every position with a different player. But the roles still have to be played, even if some are played by the same person.

"Just remember, that every minute a manager plays the role of a supervisor is a minute that your systems are neglected. Young companies don't have a choice." -TF

"Well, we run a pretty complicated system, here," Derrick said. "If I had to design the system, the people system, I would really have to sit down and flow chart it out."

"Is it all about getting the work done?" I asked.

"No, not really," Derrick struggled. "It's not just getting the work done, often it's the way we get the work done. I need dedicated supervisors to just make sure the work is flowing, that it doesn't get hung up, and that the work product meets our customers' specs."

"Is it just about making sure the work gets done, on time, on spec?"

"No, you can get the work done on time, on spec and still lose a ton of money," Derrick answered. "We also have to think about efficiency. That is why our systems are so important."

"So, is it all about getting the work done, on time, on spec in an efficient way, according to a system?" I asked.

"You would think so," Derrick nodded. "But one thing I have noticed, when we get a system humming, its momentum begins to wreak havoc on another system. Like sales, as soon as we get our sales system humming, our volume picks up and outstrips our capacity to produce. So we ramp up our capacity to produce and that outstrips our raw material flow. There always seems to be this major moving target that throws a monkey wrench into the works.

"All of these decisions are made by people, and they are all interdependent. You are right. The way I create this people system will have a dramatic effect not only on our ability to produce, but it will also impact the individual behavior of the players I have working in the system.

"I am beginning to wonder if many of the problems that I see between people and the problems I observe in performance or underperformance are caused more by the system and less by the people I am blaming things on."