Which Truth?

Leave a reply

“It’s like they fight all the time,” Sheldon explained. “Each manager thinks they know how to run the whole company, if I would just step out of the way.”

“What’s happening, explain the friction?” I asked.

“Once again, the project was late and when it was delivered to the client, it didn’t work. Pretty simple explanation. It’s the fix that’s complicated. When we only did one project at a time, everything seemed to work well. On time, on budget, never missed a beat. Then we got two projects, three. We now have seven projects in-house and they all have problems, missed deadlines, cost overruns and quality issues.”

“And?”

“The project manager is ripping his hair out. The response he is getting from all the other managers is a mix of blame and excuses,” Sheldon shrugged.

“What do they say?” I prompted.

“Want a list?” Sheldon chuckled.

  • The Sales Manager says he asked Engineering for timetable before he promised a delivery date.
  • The Engineering Manager says there were too many changes in the scope of work.
  • The Ops Manager says the timetable from Engineering was unrealistic.
  • The Accounting Manager says the budget didn’t allow for any profit.
  • The Marketing Manager says that if he had known the priority of the client, he would have put more people into the product rollout.

“So, who is right?” I smiled.

“That’s the problem. They are all right. Every word is true.”

Band Aids and Systems

Leave a reply

“We’ve grown,” Edgar explained. “We developed systems to make sure our product is consistently made, but we keep having delivery problems, running behind, backorders, line shutdowns. There always seems to be a problem.”

“Which one person has that responsibility?” I asked.

“Well, that should be the manager,” Edgar replied. “But I wonder sometimes. Have you ever seen someone in the weeds?”

“What do you mean?”

“In the weeds. Like in a restaurant, where the waiter has too many tables. He can go as fast as he wants, but never catches up and every customer stays upset.”

“So, what do you expect from the manager?”

Edgar paused, “He’s in charge of everything that goes on out there. It’s quite a big job. We have several assembly lines, lots of machines, each a little different. We have raw material inventory and finished goods inventory.”

“Where do you see the breakdown?” I pressed.

“There are two kinds of problems I see my manager facing. Sometimes he seems to fix the same problem over and over, one band-aid after the another. Other times, he can tweak our system to fix the problem once and prevent it from happening again. I call it a system fix.”

“And?”

“Sometimes, there is too much going on and he can’t study a problem long enough to make a system fix, so he is back to band-aids. And that’s when we get behind.”

Trust or Frustration

Leave a reply

“What about personalities?” Melanie asked.

“Why do you think personalities are so important?” I replied with a question.

“But, isn’t my team just a collection of personalities?” she said.

“We look at an organization and instinctively think that we must pay attention to the personalities as that will be the way the team gets along. Far more important is the structure, the way we organize the work and define the working relationships,” I nodded.

“How so?” Melanie said, trying to be practical.

“Think about the simple relationship between a manager and a team member,” I continued. “That relationship will spell trust, fairness and deep satisfaction, OR, it will spell frustration, manipulation and despair. The organization gets to choose how it defines that working relationship. Further, those emotionally charged responses of trust or frustration will spill over into the way people see the rest of the world. On the shoulders of the organization is the tone for other social relationships.”

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.”

Simple Questions

Leave a reply

“Now I have a team,” Melanie lamented.

“You seem off-balance,” I replied.

“It’s my first team. I’m the manager now,” she took a deep breath. “I woke up this morning and my relationship with the team changed. I don’t know what they want or need from me. I had a dream last night that they all quit and I was left alone.”

“Team members have three simple questions,” I replied. “If you answer these, there is a high liklihood that your team will not abandon you.”

  • What is expected of me?
  • How am I doing?
  • Who do I go to for help?

“The third question is the key,” I said. “On any team, that’s how I identify the manager. Who do they go to for help? That person helps them answer the first two questions. It is a question of WHO?”

Melanie repeated the questions. “Who helps me set expectations in my role, to which I agree? Who helps me understand how I am doing? Who do I go to for help?”

“Take your team one by one,” I nodded. “Help them answer those questions. Not easy, but simple.”

Real Problem

Leave a reply

“It’s all about connection,” Pablo said. “If a team member is connected closely with their manager, most likely they will remain engaged. If the team member becomes disconnected from their manager, or connected to a toxic manager, the job search has already begun.”

“Only the manager?” I asked.

“The manager relationship is the key, with a supporting cast of the team,” Pablo explained. “Conceptually, a manager’s accountability is simple (not easy). Create connection, prevent disconnection.”

“That’s the popularity of team exercises,” I said.

“The problem with exercises is just that. Exercises are exercises. They start up muscle memory, but if you really want to build a team, give them a real problem to solve. Stand back. Allow the team to struggle. In that struggle, you will see some things occur. Leadership will emerge, automatically. Leadership takes the form of restating the problem, clarifying the obstacles and laying down the challenge. If the problem is complex, it will require expertise in specific areas, team members will consult, rely on each other to help carry the burden. In essence, problem solving builds connection.”

Commitment or Compliance

Leave a reply

“If people do their best work in a place where they feel safe, what is it that managers can do to create that space?” I asked.

“We always want to do,” Pablo started. “If managers would only do this, do that, things would be better. It is not so much a matter of what managers do, it is a matter of the relationship between the manager and the team member. Do we have relationships built on dominance, pressure and compliance, or relationships built on trust, cooperation and commitment? Organizational structure is the way we define the working relationships between people.”

“This sounds like culture,” I replied.

“Organizational structure defines the working relationships between people. Organizational structure is culture.”

—New, available soon, on Amazon.  Premeditated Culture, Consequences of What We Tolerate.

Connection

Leave a reply

“In evaluating the health of any team, I need to look for states of connection and disconnection?” I asked.

Pablo nodded. “When you see a team in disarray, you will find disconnection. The team doesn’t go there intentionally, it goes there without thinking. Facing any dilemma, the team wants to remove the discomfort. The four typical responses of any team under stress is to fight, flight, freeze or appease. When they do, the group panics and fractures.”

“And the leader?” I asked.

“The inexperienced leader follows. In a meeting, you have seen it. A project is behind schedule because someone dropped the ball. Everyone knows who dropped the ball, but no one wants to call it out. People get defensive, engage in blaming behavior or avoid the subject altogether. There is silence, eyes look down. Then someone looks at the leader, who becomes the target for all eyes around the table. The body language clearly communicates that it is the leader who must save the team.”

“You said inexperienced, how so?” I prompted.

“The leader is being seduced,” Pablo replied. “The seduction is subtle, for the team is looking to be saved by the leader, but needs the leader to be complicit in the saving. And, the leader cannot resist the opportunity to be the savior. It is the hero incarnate. I know it sounds religious, but the mythology is there to illustrate the principle.”

“So, how does the leader prevent the seduction?” I looked sideways at Pablo.

“The team is attempting to put the issue squarely on the shoulders of the leader. The leader must resist and put the issue back on the team.”

“But you already described that the team is in panic, a state of fracture and disconnection?” I said.

“The leader must simply outlast the panic. The issue that has the potential to blow the group apart, has the same potential to weld the group together. It’s all about connection and disconnection.”

By Virtue of Contract

Leave a reply

“You have been quite clear, that it is the manager accountable for the output of the team, so, does the team member have no culpability for the work?” I asked.

“Of course they do,” Pablo countered. “By virtue of a contract, a very simple employment contract, each team member is expected to show up for work each and every day, bringing the full application of their capability, in short, to do their best.”

“Sounds simplistic, if not idealistic,” I snorted.

“Indeed simple, AND not idealistic,” Pablo replied. “It is not a matter of idealism, it is a matter of contract. And, as a matter of contract, the manager must assume each team member is doing their best.”

“But, assuming the team member is doing their best does NOT make it so.” I pushed back.

“Why, do you think it is hard?” Pablo asked, not giving me time to respond. “It is not difficult for team members to continually do their best. It is only when our people systems are dysfunctional, people find it difficult. Unless we, as managers, prevent it, people will engage, with full commitment to do their best, in fact, will find deep life satisfaction in doing so.”

A Context of Trust

Leave a reply

“Fixing accountability is the first step to creating a context of trust,” Pablo shifted. “When accountability is not clearly defined, or placed at the wrong level, mistrust begins a slow nuanced dance, often imperceptible. But it’s there. People begin to feel insecure about their own jobs, not sure where this career may or may not be taking them, squabbles emerge about equitable pay, stress among working relationships and blaming behavior.”
“Sounds like a bit of insecurity?” I ask. “Isn’t that why we do psychometric testing, to weed those people out?”
“People behave as people behave, in the context of their surroundings,” Pablo chuckled. “We think the success of a managerial system depends of the psychology of its individuals, when its success depends more on its design. Change the context, behavior follows. Go into a church or synagogue and you will see people sitting quietly, barely speaking. Does that mean they are all introverts and poor communicators? Go to a soccer stadium where a goal has just been scored and you will see people screaming, jumping up and down. Does that mean they are all extroverts with a boisterous personality. It’s all about context.”
Pablo stopped before he finished. “Fixing accountability is the first step to creating a context of trust.”