By Victor Alatorre
The goal of this blog entry is to document my processing of ideas related to leadership and management challenges.
Motivational differences
The role and motivation of knowledge workers is different to say a transactional worker that does low level duties. In a transactional worker environment, rules, metrics and clear expectations maintain order and allow for management/HR to step in when performance declines.
There are also generational differences on how people are motivated. What motivates a millennial is different from an average Xer and Boomer. For a young professional the motivators can be connected to compensation, flexibility and ultimately a perception of upward movement. Older employees are motivated by stability, respect, and application of experience.
Managers fail at creating context, clarity and transparency for directives. People are asked to move on a project or effort without a clear explanation or appreciation for the complexity, opinion or capability. If the employee fails to achieve progress, the employee’s performance is rated down. If the employee achieves perceived progress, the manager reward with additional responsibility. The reward for work well done is more work. In some situations, the reward for under performance is segregation, exclusion and indifference toward the employee. Performance failures are management failures, not employee failures. Motivators tend to expire. What you value today may not work as a motivator tomorrow. Rewards become baseline expectations over time.
On the issue of performance metrics
Looking for anomalies of performance can be difficult because most managers do not have time/experience/ability to see issues around them. Most of us (depending on ability/motivation) are busy putting out daily fires. Organizational dynamics are complicated because they include layers and systems. Systems of people/resources and expectations are superimposed over layers of politics and environmental constraints. When looked from above, they look like one mesh, but the reality is that they are part of a multilayered-sometimes not connect net of people/time/resource and skills. On top of that, human interaction plays a role on how motivated you are to be part of a team or part of a solution. If the employee is not internally motivated/committed to move forward due to external pressures, their behavior/halo will be disruptive to peers.
Empowerment and delegation
Organization units some times do not communicate about expectations and performance targets. Employees should be encouraged to handle customer complains to the end results. Hotels train employees to take customer complains/needs seriously. Disney is notorious for creating a culture of experience. In order to do that, all employees must buy-into the culture of service and responsiveness. If only a few employees do this consistently, the effort will not be noticed. In order for these efforts on customer service to be successful, one must have “slack” (capacity to expand or reduce time/money constraints) Without slack, there is no new knowledge, procedure flexibility, personalized attention to customers, etc. Customization comes with a price, that only higher premium operations can provide. Disney experiences are not cheap because they allow for flexibility. Information systems need to be used for decision making. IT cannot fix human failures in self preservation. Not reviewing reports/using data for proper decision making is a mistake we should avoid. Using only your instinct to diagnose inserts the error of personal bias.
The complicated path to promotion
Culture plays a role on how intrinsic motivators or achievements become part of the path to upward mobility. KSA requirements are used to protect the organization from personal and personnel bias. Avoiding lawsuit is a strong motivator to follow consistent paths/procedures for promotion/evaluation/termination. Inconsistency on culture and supervisory bias are what makes all these factors unattainable.
KPIs, scorecards, metrics, dashboards, CQI, TQM, Lean, Lean Sigma are tools created to simplify complicated metrics of organization dynamics and performance. Manager DNA cannot be cloned. Organizational culture cannot be cloned. Metrics are the oversimplification of organizational cultural expectations and outcomes. Trying to put a number on unquantifiable performance like ownership and empowerment can be difficult.
On the issue of feedback
Some managers avoid communicating or create a culture of fear. Feedback doesn’t follow the normal channels, it creates its own flow through informal networks of dissatisfied employees. Non-routable feedback lingers and creates tension among organizational silos. The loop of expectations/feedback never closes because managers are not trusted to do the right thing or at least address the issues shared by employees/teams.
Integrators are defined in the book as people that connect people, resources and knowledge. Integrators work through relationships and investments in cooperation. Creating integrators is difficult because it goes against basic human pursue for consolidated power. Power consolidation is when certain managers through their behaviors seek to centralize all decision making and resources vested on them.
One of the roles of management is to monitor/control the availability of resources, hence working against the very basic tool integrators use to accomplish win win solutions; the divesting/decentralization of power/resources. I am not sure I agree with on the statements that defines a potential future integrator….Yes it is someone that it is not satisfied with the status quo. Nevertheless someone who has no ability to influence is probably incapable to foster change without a title. A person capable of moving the organization forward is one that can instigate a sense of urgency and works within the system, not outside of it. Charisma, selfless acts of patience/sharing and self awareness/management are strong tools for a well “trained” (knowledge worker) to move forward as integrator.
Unhappy employees create tension and tension creates a burden affecting organizational performance. The perception of inclusion/exclusion into decision making or empowerment is different in every case, so coming with a staged diagnostic is complex. Differential approach on rewards and performance play an important role in conflict. At the individual level, employees want to know that they are appreciated and respected for their contribution. Dissonance on rewards creates apathy. Apathy creates dysfunction and decline.
Blanket orders for organizational change never work as intended. The goal of upper management is to create segmented/manageable units of employees working towards a common goal, when motivators are incorrectly positioned, it creates disincentives for cooperation. Cost Center/Revenue Centers tend to work against each other if rules of performance and outcomes are not shared properly. Silo Managers in large organizations tend to loose focus of the big picture and work on meeting their own KPIs. If bonuses/performance rewards are individually measured, the organizational outcomes will be inversely correlated. Dumping product by sales people at the end of a quarter to make quotas knowing it will represent future refunds is a behavior experienced in many organizations measuring the wrong performance indicators.
Rules need not to be minimized but shared among org participants regardless of status. Organizational cultural expectations take time and require a culture of shared management. Rules created to fit personal egos or management styles tend to conflict in the long run with holistic expectations and outcomes. Employees become demotivated by following the expectations of over-zealousness instead of focusing on improving org-wide outcomes. When people say… “that is not my job”. It is a good indicator of a myopic vision.
The rule of 7
Management roles, team leads, coordinator jobs are created due to the rule of 7. Humans can only supervise, lead, or participate effectively in groups not bigger than 7. Anything above that number is complicated/impossible to manage. In an effort to overcome this very real limitation, managers create status report procedures and operational meetings. There are times that Rules/Laws/Procedures are created to limit HR liability and union compliance, but they impact creativity, flexibility and motivation. Awareness on how rules demoralize or create negative behavior are very hard to identify. Diagnostics for the impact of rules in a close culture of feedback become hard to identify and overcome.
Correct Metrics for performance
The issue is not the application of metrics, but using the wrong metrics. Rewarding people for things they did as individuals perpetuates the “me first” mentality of star employees. Reasonable efforts should be made to measure the overall performance linked to various team and individual goals and achievements. I believe rewards should be based on behavior, cooperation, contribution and outcomes. It is not a simple formula at as factors change over time. A programmer cannot be evaluated on lines of codes committed, or bugs identified, or innovation in standardized environments. How you measure the performance of a knowledge worker overtime is complex.
A recommendation is given to get rid of managers that cannot serve as integrators. Other factors come into play that limit organizational ability to flatten. In an environment with no clear lines of authority, the loudest/most influential tend to throw their weight around. Bureaucracies slow down decision making. Informal shadow leaders arise based on factors not directly related to their capacity to do their jobs. Relying on observation and judgement requires experience, selflessness and goodwill. Unfortunately humans tend to inject bias in decision making or prioritization of duties.
On the issue on the definition of power
The ultimate physical action to change a condition based on attributed, vested or inherited capability. The way power is used by the individual depends on their experience and value system. Initially, systems of accountability and rules provide the baseline for behavior and expectations. How individuals get condition to behave once “power” is given depends on the individual itself and can have catastrophic consequences for the organization. Organizational culture plays a role on determining how power is viewed and used. Titles alone cannot determine the amount of power an individual has over their peers. To move to an empowered environment, it requires that managers work against their instinct to command and control. The ultimate outcome is to share power and to empower those around them to do the right thing. For some managers, giving power to co workers means losing power over their domain. On the pursuit of influence and power, some tend to struggle with delegation as more responsibility is given.
