Management: The Unnecessary Evil

Jason-

Thanks for the post on “Life without Management,” and glad to hear that you took a little family time. We have been squeezing in some weekend trips as summer winds down and those have kept us pretty busy as well. I have been thinking a lot about your post and I agree that accountability is a big part of the equation here, but I have decided that I am going to hold fast to my original argument. Management is an unnecessary evil.

In thinking about this issue, I keep going back to something Clay Shirky said (disclaimer: I have a huge professional crush on Clay Shirky).
“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
Management does not want accountability because then it loses the power advantage, and the hard truth of this whole thing is that we still have a philosophy of management based on power.

There is a great deal of talk about the new leadership and leadership 2.0 and yadda, yadda, yadda…you and I both know there are some of those folks out there and some of those organizations out there, but I think they are the exception to the rule. You do not have the recent financial debacle with real leadership and individual accountability…you also do not have Enrons or the recent outcomes we have seen from BP and Toyota. Hell, with real leadership and individual accountability Congress would get a little work done.

Academics and consultants talk about it like it is the reality but it is not. The business world is dominated by managers who believe in power over, rather than power with. There is no room or reward for personal accountability until management goes away.

You Are Not The Boss of Me!

Jason-

Good stuff on dealing with a bad manager. Bad managers is probably a topic that we could spend a lot of time on and our Bad Managers Suck series could probably go on for a very, very long time. I think that a big part of the reason that things like The Office and Dilbert resonate with so many folks is that as ridiculous as they often are, they are also hit very close to home especially regarding our relationship with supervisors. There are a lot of things that contribute to bad management and we could spend a lot of time and energy cracking that issue open, but what about this…

Why don’t we just get rid of it? Why don’t we do away with management as a title, as a role, as a philosophy, as a source of so much unnecessary drama? In our manifesto we tell leaders to "get out of the way"...maybe they should really get out of the way?



What would happen if did some real “re-engineering” and let all managers go? We could of course allow them to apply for other open positions within the company, we’re not complete a-holes! Would things grind to a halt? I kind of doubt it. I am sure that there would be some initial confusion, but there would also be a lot less management related dysfunction.

What would a world without management look like?

What if “the organization” became a network of self-organized teams?

What if we went to an organization and took everyone that was in a supervisory role and we changed their role from supervision to resource coordination…they would have no authority over anyone but were responsible for helping the team that they were assigned to coordinate with other teams and access to the tools that they needed to be successful…whether it be budget, training, equipment, policy change, etc. Their purpose was solely to coordinate and make available resources and support for the department or team that they were assigned to.

What about, rather than fixing management, we do away with it?
-joe

Bad Managers Suck - Chapter 2

Jason-

Bad managers…a favorite topic of mine. I got spoiled early in life by spending four years in the Marine Corps where not all, but most of the leaders I worked with were very good and a couple were off the charts amazing. I have not since seen a work environment that has as favorable a good vs. bad management ratio.

I have seen my fair share of the silent treatment that you mentioned and another one that I see frequently is the illusion of interest.

Managers who want to appear to be interested in what you have to say, but they actually could care less. For example, the manager who comes to visit with you about a pending change to “get your feedback,” but the decision has already been made. Or the manager who solicits input, but then explains away or disagrees with everything that is offered up, never really considering or exploring any options.

I personally am in favor of banning those managers from society, but that is probably going to be viewed by some as extreme.

The actual solution is probably a bigger piece of work. I think this is actually one of many symptoms of an underlying problem, and that is that we are still using a 20th century approach to management in the 21st century world of business, which is very, very different.

How we create value has changed, how we communicate has changed, how we organize resources has changed, but very little has changed about our understanding of and approach to management. There are some exceptions, certainly, but you and I both see a lot of command and control, manager as parent type of organizations.

Most managers are not truly interested in the ideas and perspectives of their employees because they have somewhere along the line bought into the belief that being management means that they know best.

Managers rarely know what is best. They might know the inside scoop from the board room and they might know the latest budget numbers, but they rarely know what is best. It is almost impossible for managers to know what is best because they are further removed from the front line products and employees.

If you are any good at hiring people, you will end up with a team that together knows far more than you do. This is just reality and you should not pick a fight with it or pretend other wise.

Managers that are not willing and able to really tap into and value the perspectives, ideas and questions of their employees will eventually quit getting any of them and that is horribly wasteful.

-joe

Making Space for the Truth

Jason-

A follow-up to my last post.

So here is the dilemma…

Organizations (like any social group) require a certain amount of conformity. There are certain rules and policies and norms (implicit and explicit) that you need to follow in order to have membership. The more conformist an organization is, the less it is able to utilize the intangible assets that it has access to…things like the curiosity, creativity, ideas, questions, experiences, perspectives, diversity, passion, etc. that live within its workforce. These things make people stand out and so in a more conformist environment they tend to stay buried.

So.

If an organization wants to minimize conformity in order to harness its intangibles and maximize its ability to learn, adapt, innovate and evolve, how does it do that? Here are some thoughts.

Look for and expect dissent. If you are talking about anything of substance and there is not some disagreement, you should be very concerned. As General Patton said; “If everyone is thinking the same thing, someone is not thinking at all.” This can be a significant blind spot when we are in a position of leadership though, because we start out thinking pretty highly of our own ideas and when everyone around us agrees with them, who are we to see that as problematic?

Teach people how to disagree respectfully. Talk about this starting in the interview process, include it in job descriptions and in performance evaluations, provide training and feedback. Make it a normal and central part of the culture.

Create and support a different kind of leadership. A big part of why this is a problem to begin with is that we have a way of leadership/management that is largely built on being right and owning the truth. This stands in the way of candid conversation, challenging assumptions, and questioning decisions...all of which can be incredibly valuable for an organization.

Crush politics at every chance. The validity, value and necessity of organizational politics are greatly overrated. We have organizational politics to the extent that we do because that is what we tolerate. Be less tolerant. Organizational politics come at great cost as employees end up with truncated identities and trade their passion and ideals in for the rules to the game.

I think the "how do we do it?" question probably has a lot of different answers, but I think that these are a good start.

-joe

Building the right kind of Container

Jason-

Thanks for the great list on increasing our capacity to work with and through conflict. Good stuff and very actionable. There is only one thing that I would add to this list and it is really a pretty common theme in our work and in our ongoing discussions. I think that the nature of our relationships is probably a large variable in the capacity for those relationships to withstand and actually benefit from some conflict and tension.

One thing that every single one of us can do, regardless of our role or title, regardless of our education or amount of experience is make a greater effort to develop and maintain real and resilient relationships…relationships strong enough to tolerate a bit of conflict. We have talked a fair amount about social capital in this space and I think that it is a dead horse worth beating.

Conflict, tension, and dissent are not bad things necessarily…in fact they can be very good things. They can be a sign that people are awake, paying attention and actually give a shit about something. They can be a sign that people are willing to be honest…which unfortunately is not terribly common in my experience.

If you want the benefit of that honesty and those different perspectives, you have to create the right kind of container. If you cannot create that container, then conflict is likely to break things pretty quickly. Your list is a great way to go about building that container, as is an overall focus on building strong relationships.

-joe

Let's Get Conflicted

Joe,

As was reflecting on our conversation about conflict and how the fear of conflict is severely damaging our organizations, I was reminded that this isn't just a work issue. We generally steer away from the difficult conversations in every aspect of our lives. Couples don't talk about money. Parents struggle to talk to their kids about sex. We even have a tough time telling our friends that something they are doing might be damaging to them or others. Any conversation that might lead to conflict or discomfort, we generally avoid. But yet, each of these conversations is really important and avoiding them could lead to disaster.

So, what do we do?

I'm certainly no expert on this topic as I suffer from the same natural instincts as every other human being. But, I think that when we specifically talk about being a leader in an organization, there are certain things we can do to build our organizations capacity for constructive conflict.

1. Be the model. As a leader, the most important tool we have is our own actions and behaviors. We must demonstrate what it looks like to give tough feedback or to confront a situation, even when your push back is likely to be viewed unfavorably. This means finding the courage to have these conversations and pushing through the inevitable desire to avoid them when it comes. For our direct reports, just giving them good feedback on a regular basis is a great place to start (this means the good and, more importantly, the bad).

2. Become a student of conflict. Role modeling conflict is best if you are skilled at it. In order to become good at it, it's important to study and practice. Pick up the books Crucial Confrontations and Fierce Conversations as a starting point. Also, study conflict resolution tactics. There are tools that help make conflict much more manageable. With these tools in hand, it's much less intimidating to have the tough conversations.

3. Teach conflict skills. Once you've become proficient, it's important to share the knowledge with others. Create book groups or trainings for your direct reports or peers. Write up cheat sheets. Anything you can do to get others familiar with the tools for constructive conflict. The more confident we are that we can handle conflict positively, the less likely we are to run from it.

4. Make conflict cool. Most organizations take their behavioral lead from the senior leaders, so if they are willing and able to engage in conflict situations, then others will as well. If they handle them well, that sets a great tone for everyone else. But, the converse is true as well. This means that we need to work on the executives within our organization to first get them to embrace conflict as a positive part of business. Then, to engage in becoming better at conflict. This is no easy task. Depending on where the conflict avoidance tendencies of an organization are today, the place to start might be by sharing articles and case studies from other organizations that support the case that constructive conflict is important. If you already have this kind of buy in, then find ways to both train senior leaders in constructive conflict techniques through corporate meetings, articles, etc.

5. Create conflict practice. The organizations who handle conflict the best have created ways to practice it. They create low-stakes situations where people are forced into conflict. This might mean meetings where people are divided into groups and asked to argue different sides of an important issue. It could mean asking direct reports to create a "role play" scenario where they act out a situation where tough feedback is being shared. Humans learn by doing, so the best way to effectively teach constructive conflict is by getting them into situations where they have to actually do it.

These are the kinds of things I'm working on to bring more constructive conflict to my organization. Are there other approaches you have found to be successful?

Jason

Can you handle the truth?

Jason-

Really, really good post. I think this is an issue at the root of many challenges that organizations and leaders face.

You posed two questions for me...

1.) Does my experience align with yours regarding the desire of most folks to avoid conflict (even at great cost)?

Yes. Emphatically yes. In some of the workshops that I do inside of organizations we spend time considering the culture...we actually examine specific aspects of the organizations culture, assign them a grade and then talk about opportunities for improvement. People seem to enjoy doing this and have no problem identifying specific things that the organization or senior leaders can do better. Then we move on to talk about individual opportunities to contribute to a better organizational culture and the entire conversation dries up. I start to hear things like:

"You just dont rock the boat around here...if you do there will be blowback."
"Change starts at the top, how am I going to make something happen."
"I just do my job and keep my head down."

I do not know if real change ever starts at the top, but there are a whole host of reasons that people have (regardless of their title) about why the environment is not quite right for them to speak out or to take some ownership for organizational culture.

2.) What must we do to solve this problem?

Probably several answers to this question, depending on who "we" is. But I think that the big answer is that we must strive to build organizational culture and organizational leadership that values and rewards personal courage and risk taking. This is a really big shift, as we currently have a way of leadership that defaults to defense of the hierarchy and the status quo. This always compromises truth...which compromises everything else.

You probably have some additional and more specific answers relevant to your role inside the machine. I think that I have to be very intentional about holding myself accountable on this issue, because as an external consultant I can fall into the same trap of focusing on what others want to hear rather than the whole truth. I have gotten much better at having candid (and often times very difficult) conversations with organizational leaders about my observations, but I know that when I first began work as a consultant I did not do a very good job of this.

Again, I think you have touched on a really important topic here and I would love to hear a bit more from your perspective about solutions...are there things that you do to develop the comfort and skill in your direct reports for handling conflict?
-joe

The Crisis of Conflict Avoidance

Joe,

Twice recently I've run into situations where I've had conversations with people where they relayed to me how they weren't comfortable having open discussions with others at work. One person was in a situation where she was miserable at work, but was choosing not to have the tough conversation with her boss that could lead to improvements. When I asked her why, she shared with me a list of assumptions she was making:

• She thought that it didn't matter if she talked to her boss because she didn't think anything could be done.
• Because her issue is primarily with the behavior of a co-worker, she felt that bringing up her concerns would come across as petty.
• She felt like it was an issue that she should probably be able to resolve on her own (even though she'd been failing to deal with it for 2 years)
• She thought that raising these complaints my jeopardize her job

The issues this woman were experiencing weren't easy ones to resolve. But, they could be resolved with the help of her management. However, because her management weren't aware of the extent of the issue, they weren't taking any action to resolve it. By choosing silence, she had become part of the problem. Her solution: go look for another job. The irony of the situation was that her primary fear in bringing the issues up to her boss was that it might impact her job security (although she had not evidence to support that fear), so instead of taking that risk, she was just going to find a new job. It seems crazy, but I think it happens a lot.

My experience tells me that this issue is plaguing our businesses and workplaces. People are, for one reason or another, choosing silence and misery over courage and change. It is another reminder for me of how fearful human nature is of change. It also reminds me of how harmful it can be to people when you have a workplace that punishes those who have the courage to speak up.

As organizations talk about talent management, they often find themselves focused on systems and ratings, assessments and succession plans. But, the best designed system in the world cannot effectively set talent free in the absence of open, authentic conversations that will regularly dip into uncomfortable areas of conflict.

Just last week, I sat in a room with several HR leaders from various larger employers in the area to discuss developing leadership. As further evidence of this lack of open conversation, this group identified conflict management skills as the single biggest gap amongst their future leaders. Even more concerning was that the discussion in this group revealed that it wasn't just these leaders who were conflict incapable (or worse, avoidant), but that it was really the culture that reinforced unproductive harmony over productive conflict.

This is a crisis. So, I pose to you these two questions:

1. Does your experience align with mine on this issue?
2. What must we do to solve this problem?

I look forward to your thoughts.

-Jason

In Defense of HR

Joe,

Since we do work that flies under the heading of "Human Resources," we've always treated HR like family. Because we love our family, we are typically overly critical of them. We want our family to do well, so we dish out the feedback and share ways that our family members can get better. And, like most families, we don't tell those closest to use that we love them enough. That brings me to the reason for my post.

Human Resources, as a profession, is evolving. We started out from a disadvantaged position from our very creation and have been clawing our way to respectability ever since. In many places, HR is still clinging to past at their own expense, but I also see a lot going on within HR that makes me really proud. And, if I was a business school graduate coming into the corporate world today, I don't think you could find a more exciting place to start your career than in HR. Here's why.

1. Self-awareness. We teach leaders all the time that self-awareness is the foundation of leadership. If this is true, then HR should be developing great leadership skills. I don't think that there's another profession out there that spends as much time talking about what it means to be in it's own profession than HR. We know how we are viewed (there's seemingly a new survey punching us in the face with it every week). We know that we need to get better because our business peers don't seem to have any problem telling us when we suck. There's a lot out there about where our gaps are and how we need to get better. And, I think that HR has largely embraced this feedback. What we do with it is the key.
2. Commitment to Development. I am floored every day by how many blogs exist out there that are written by smart HR professionals who are sharing their war stories and lessons learned with the whole world. We spend a lot of time not only talking about our own profession, but also sharing information and taking in information to try and get better at it. This sharing and learning dynamic is closing the HR skill gap quickly.
3. Momentum. While some may argue that HR hasn't changed all that much in the past 20 years, I think they need to take a closer look. In HR, we didn't need a change, we needed a revolution. We need a complete paradigm shift from viewing ourselves as managing the personnel side of the business, to leading the strategy of the organization. A revolution doesn't happen overnight, it's starts with a few courageous visionaries and a groundswell starts from there. There's a lot of evidence that this is taking place within HR. If you peek in on the conversations between HR pros on Twitter, you feel the movement. You also see gatherings like HRevolution beginning to happen where the purpose of the event is to bring those on the fringe together to weave the social fabric required for a revolution (I'm proud to say that we are involved in this event).

We aren't always the nicest when it comes to our HR family. We poke and prod, we challenge, and we criticize. So, today I want to be very clear. HR, we love you. We believe in you. We know that you are up to the enormous challenges we are called to meet. That's why we are so tough on you.

Okay, now let's get off our asses and go make it happen. There's work to do.

-Jason

Empowerment is Overrated

Jason-

“Empower” is increasingly becoming one of those words that tends to make me a little twitchy, but interesting post nonetheless.

I agree that personal responsibility is an important part of this conversation. I subscribe to the framework Kurt Lewin laid out nearly 100 years ago:

B = f(P,E)

Behavior is a function of both the person and the environment.

When we say that we need to “empower” employees I start to twitch because it seems to me that we are saying that the environment is fine or acceptable and employees just need to deal with it and "step up"...and I think that is a fundamentally flawed place to start from. I think that the organizational environment is almost always dysfunctional and that should always be our first obligation.

I think that we almost always overlook this, accepting our organizational environment as the default context. And I think that in HR this underlying belief shows up in our actions and words all the time. For example, you said:

"As we discussed personal accountability of the employee, your comments quickly turned to how the organization bears the responsibility for making it "safe" to confront bad management. That's a bit like choosing not to play a game unless you are certain you will win before you decide to play. There isn't much accountability or responsibility in that equation on the employee's side. The reality is that any environment where it's "safe" to confront bad management probably has pretty decent management already."

I disagree with pretty much every single word in this paragraph.

Choosing not to play a game unless you are certain you will win is actually something very, very different than what I am talking about. I am talking about having some rules in place that apply to all the players. If the game is rigged there is not much point in playing it, and it is bit ridiculous for you to think that you will "empower" me to do so. Choosing not to play the game unless you are certain about the outcome is actually what management (and at times HR) has a tendency to do when they punish or exclude truth-tellers. And when we say that places where it is safe to tell the truth have "pretty decent management" we are setting the bar really, really low for decent management.

The presence of truth-telling is not an indication of good management, it is simply an indication of an organization that actually values the truth and wants to create the opportunity for management to learn and improve.

I think that we should be advocates for personal responsibility for all employees and especially for senior leaders because they have a disproportionate influence on the working environment of others.

I think that if HR is going to break this cycle you are talking about, it is far less about “empowering” employees than it is about getting ridiculous bullshit (see organizational politics, HR policy, bad management, etc.) out of their way so that they can be honest with each other and with their supervisors, so that they can apply some common sense to their work.

-joe