Shallow Management

by Don Harkey

I'm going to start the week of with one of my rants... I feel OK doing this, since many of you have told me that my rants yield some of your favorite articles.

I am not one of those people who believe that "greed" is what got us into the economic situation we are in today, although it has played a role. I do not believe that corporations are evil or good (they just are) nor do I believe that rich people are bad or good (they just have money). I am a big fan of personal responsibility not only because it encourages people to get less dependent on others, but also because it makes people enjoy their lives more.

However, I am sick and tired of what has prevailed as the corporate, MBA (I am NOT knocking MBA's, but I do criticize the things many MBA schools teach) mentality that seems to infest larger corporations. The management style I am referring to is something I have called "shallow-end of the pool" management or SEP Management.

SEP Management is a style where management from executives all the way down to some front-line supervisors refuse to engage in the work being done by their company. They consider themselves above the work going on around them and say that they need to maintain a high level, professional view of the organization in order to function. They are ready to make the "tough" decisions, although amazingly, the tough decisions tend to be tough only for other people.

Ethics are often thrown out of the window with these types of managers, although not in the way that we are taught in Ethics 101 courses. Let me give you an example...

I recently approached a major author within a major company with a majorly good idea. The idea is really good, and I was ready to execute the idea, but I needed the permission of the author and the company to do so. I managed to find an inside contact with the author (a former teacher of his) and get his direct email. I sent a vague description of the idea after an introduction from my connector. His assistant wrote back that I might be able to get 5 minutes of his time in 3-4 months. She went on... perhaps I should send more information on the idea.

Knowing that I couldn't procede without them, I wrote a quick synopsis of the idea along with how I could execute the idea and promote their company and book with just a simple approval. The assistant wrote back within a few minutes of receiving the email saying that this she would "put it in front" of the author "immediately". A few weeks later, I got an email response from the company. They were "already pursuing" the idea and thanked me for my time and wished me and my company luck.

I have no way of knowing whether or not they were pursuing the idea already or not, although I suspect they were not. I also have no way of knowing what happened inside the walls of the company. Having worked in a corporate environment, I have imagined a fictious meeting in my head between the author and some executives...

Author - "I got this idea from this guy in Springfield forwarded by a former teacher of mine. I really think he might be on to something."

Executive #1 - "That is a good idea."

Executive #2 - "Does this guy have any legal right to the idea? We own the book and its material. The application is open source. Does he have any legal grounds? Do we HAVE to use him if we executed this?"

Executive #1 - "No. He has no legal right to this. We can easily pursue it on our own."

Author - "What should I tell him?"

Executive #1 - "Tell him thanks, but don't give him too much info. He may not have a legal basis, but we don't need to upset him either. We probably would have come up with this concept sooner or later anyway..."

(END SCENE)

I don't know if that is what happened or not, but I have heard about too many similar meetings occuring in meeting rooms (and sat in more than a few of them). The technique is one of dismissal and separation. The question is quickly turned from one of ethics to one of legalities. No one even dares to discuss the "right thing to do" because it has "nothing to do" with business.

This is SEP thinking.

There is good news, however. SEP thinking is not only wrong, it is also ineffective. Managers who treat people the right way do better than those who don't. Companies who reward these types of managers and shun SEP managers do better than those who don't. The free market really does work, but credit for good ideas get squashed from time to time!

Accountability - Choosing Autonomy

by Don Harkey

We've talked about how traditional management sets expectations and holds people accountable to those expectations. Then Dr. Levesque talked about how accountability is often tied to a reward, but how people aren't well motivated by rewards. A friend of mine who is teaches management classes at a University recently told me that his students think there 2 ways to get someone to do something... pay them for it or threaten them. What does all of this mean?

It is true (and fairly noncontroversial) that people are best motivated internally. If you feel that doing something is really a part of who you are, you are very motivated to do it. Is that being selfish? Maybe, but that's OK. Even when we help out others, we get a very good feeling of internal satisfaction, which helps us to be highly motivated to help out even more people.

As Dr. Levesque also stated, a key component to being motivated to do something is autonomy. If a person can choose whether or not to act and how to act, the person will have a greater sense of internal satisfaction, even if the task itself is unpleasant. This means that if we are ordered to do something our motivation decreases. This also means that if we are given a reward (or punishment) for doing something (or not doing something), our potential for being internally motivated is decreased.

This is where the word "accountability" causes so much confusion. In management circles, the word is often used as something applied by management to workers. A manager will hold an employee accountable for their performance. As my friend above says, the manager who thinks this way will either reward or threaten the employee as a method for holding them accountable.

An alternative way to think about "accountability" is to think of it as an internal process. An employee holds himself accountable just as a manager holds herself accountable. This is the core message of author Andy Andrews. A successful person "chooses" to be responsible for their own life. They hold themselves accountable to their own actions. This type of accountability looks at internal rewards and leads to greater motivation.

So that leads to the 20 million dollar question... How do you get people to hold themselves accountable? How do you get someone to choose to do something rather than order them to do it? What role does the "thank you mug", as one reader submitted, play in this process?

Stay tuned!

Galt Blog - New Format??

by Don Harkey

First of all, I want to thank all of you for reading my blog and especially for contributing comments! I have been able to track hits and we now have readers from 10 different countries and 51 different cities! The blog loyalty continues to grow showing many people checking in several times a week!

In an effort to continue to improve the quality of the blog, I want to bounce an idea for a new format off of you. My goal is to provide readers with entertaining, inspiring, and useful articles on the general subjects of leadership, management, and passion. Starting in a week or so, I would like to start bringing in guest writers to write on the "Concept of the Week". This will bring a little variety to the blog while organizing the articles a little. I will keep Friday as a "free for all" and us it to write about topics that simply strike my fancy.

If you are interested in contributing to the blog, please shoot me an email at info@galtconsulting.com. I will post a schedule of the weekly topics (probably shown in the side bar).

Thanks again for reading! If you have any thoughts on the new format, let me know!

Management 101 - Back to Deming

by Don Harkey

"We are living in a prison, under tyranny of the prevailing style of interaction between people, between teams, between divisions. We need to throw overboard our theories and practices of the present, and build afresh. We must throw overboard the idea that competition is a necessary way of life. In place of competition, we need cooperation."

- W. Edwards Deming from "The New Economics" (1994)

Many people have asked me where my central philosophy in management was derived. I often talk (or write) about how I see flaws in what is currently the popular idea of good management. I read articles from management professors, which, forgive me, are not only wrong, but reflect the core of many of the problems faced in organizations today. So if you believe that there is a better way, where do you start?

My answer is simple. Start with W. Edwards Deming.

I will let you look up information on Deming and learn about his long career. There is plenty of information available on the web or in the library about Deming's principles and his life. To me, Deming is to management what Einstein is to physics. In the field of physics, scientists are still working hard to fully understand the theories that Einstein first introduced to the world almost a century ago. Deming's ideas are similar. Few management gurus will dispute Deming outright, but few also truly understand and follow his philosophy.

Summarizing Deming's views is like summarizing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However, there is simplicity to it. Deming's belief is that our culture has developed to think of a free market as one where competition at all levels leads to success. This is Adam Smith's view of economics. If Deming is Einstein in our analogy, then Smith is Isaac Newton. Like Newton, Smith is almost right.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

- Adam Smith from "The Wealth of Nations" (1776)

In essence, Smith says that competition drives prices down and cooperation drives prices up. He has a point. Companies have pulled together to "fix prices" in the market just as Smith describes above (ex: ADM in the early 90's). It is also true that competition can lower prices, especially as consumers are given more choices. Smith's theory can be (and is regularly) applied to individuals as well. Employees who band together can fix their output and demand more wages (ex: auto worker's union). Employees who are put in competition with each other will work harder because they have to.

However, like Newtonian physics, this theory doesn't work all of the time... and the exceptions are extremely important.

There are plenty of examples of "people of the same trade" pulling together to decrease costs and improve quality for the consumer. Professional organizations have developed standards that provide professionals with a collective knowledge. An example is the American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which provides best practices for use throughout the world, which has lead to decrease costs from manufacturers who don't need to develop their own standards, and improved quality because the collected knowledge is better than any individual organization could have developed. This cooperation has lead to lower costs and improved quality.

What about individuals? Professional athletes are often inspired by competition, but history shows us that the best performances come from teams that consist of individuals who cooperate toward a common goal. The Yankees regularly have the best players in all of the baseball, but they are often defeated by teams consisting of young, start-up players.

This is a complex topic, but I am trying to leave you with 2 key points. First, the more I learn about Deming, the more I see that he right. Second, think about competition and cooperation and how they impact your organization. Challenge yourself and question conventional wisdom. Let's start digging our tunnel out of the "prison" that Deming talks about!

Accountability

by Don Harkey

"They just won't do what I tell them to do!"

I recently heard someone say that the role of management is to set expectations and then hold people accountable to them. This gives a poor picture as to the complete role of management.

It is true that setting an expectation is important and that people do need to be held accountable. However, this approach misses one of the best "tricks" of the management trade. Your goal as a manager should be to minimize how many expectations you set and also to minimize how much you need to "hold" people accountable. Let me explain.

Manager #1 decides to set clear expectations for their employees and makes sure to hold their people very accountable. She sits down with each employee on a quarterly basis and lists their expectations. At the same meeting, she also reviews the previous expectations with the employee and determines whether or not they were met. The employee's pay is tied directly to their performance to the expectations.

Manager #2 works continuously to make sure that the employee feels related or connected with their work. Their employees understand the common vision of the company and set their own expectations to align with that of the organization. They feel extreme pride in their successes and work quickly to repair their failures because they feel like they are a part of something important. Manager #2 is free to look to the future and provide more resources to her employees working hard on their common goal.

My point is this. You can threaten someone with their job and make them do something or you can convince the person that it is in their best interest to do something. A good example is safety training at a manufacturing facility. I can threaten employees with disciplinary action if they fail to wear their safety glasses (which I should do), but I will be much more effective if I can convince them that wearing the glasses are in their best interest (it might save their vision!).

Threats and coercions don't stick. Relatedness to a common vision builds an internal motivation within your employee and frees up management to do their real job of planning, envisioning the future, and providing resources to their employees.