Requisite Managerial Authority Four – Employee Deselection versus Termination
By Michelle Malay Carter on March 6, 2008
Creating an Accountability Culture
Today is post four on the Requisite Organization model?s four minimum managerial authorities that are prerequisites for creating an accountability culture.
For those arriving late,?welcome, click to read?number one, two, and three.
Managerial Authority Four:
Managers shall have the authority to initiate removal of a non-performing employee from his role.
Once again, this seems relatively straightforward, but there is a subtle nuance here.? We often assign overarching character traits to employees based on their performance in a particular role – an employee is either motivated or lazy, either competent or incompetent.?
Contextual Competence Versus “Go, No-Go” Competence
However, motivation and competence are highly contextual.? Generally, when I am interested in a role and value it, I will be motivated.? When I value a role, have the appropriate knowledge and skills and cognitive capability, I will be competent.?
Motivation and competence are not “go, no-go” traits of employees, but rather reflections of the situation within which?they are?operating.
Granting Authority to Gain Accountability
Back to managerial authority, if we want to hold managers accountable for the output of their team, we must?grant them the authority?to deselect a non-performing employee from their team.
Deselection is Not Termination?
However, this does not necessarily mean this employee should be terminated (aside from conduct issues).? A decent human being could be “lazy and incompetent” in one role and a “star performer” in another.
Organizations supposedly “warring for talent” would do well to attempt to find a better fit for non-performing employees rather than labeling them incompetent and kicking them to the curb.
The Broader Picture – A Win, Win, Win System
If organizations were to embrace the “Contextual Competence” model, deselection would be seen as a part of the learning and development process.? Managers would have an option short of termination, employees could switch jobs without shame, and organizations would turnover far fewer employees.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever terminated a hard-working but misfit employee?? Would a deselection option have felt more humane?
Filed Under Accountability, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 4 Comments
Creating An Accountability Culture – Prerequisite Three
By Michelle Malay Carter on March 5, 2008
Today is post three on the Requisite Organization model’s four minimum managerial authorities that are prerequisites for creating an accountability culture.
For those arriving via search engine, here is requisite authority 1, and here you can find number two.
Requisite Authority Three:
Managers shall review, recognize, and reward their employees’ effectiveness.
When written, this seems easy, but what implications are embedded in this statement??? Many managers have the authority to recommend in a performance management process, but the true decision authority lies elsewhere.
Effectiveness Cannot Be Calculated!
This statement also implies that organizations are judging employee effectiveness and not just simply calculating performance.? Calculating performance requires a calculator.? Judging effectiveness takes an involved manager.
In the words of Elliott Jaques from the book Requisite Organization, “It is the manager, and only the manager who is in a position to judge – and who must judge – the working effectiveness of subordinates, and thus determine any merit review.”
“[For a manager] to only have the authority to recommend leads to that well-known shoulder shrug and passing of the buck:? ‘I told them you were good, but they wouldn’t listen.’? Effectiveness appraisal and determination of merit review of immediate subordinates are fundamental requirements of being a manager.”
The High Cost of Removing Managerial Authority
I’ve said before, that as organizations have slowly eroded managerial authority and given away managerial accountabilities to HR and other third parties, they have created managerial impotence.? The managers have responded by rightfully refusing to take the helm of accountability.? As a result, employees are not being led, and they are disengaging in droves.? HR has a role to play, but it is not that of proxy manager.
Restore managerial authority and watch accountability take an upswing.? I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever lacked the authority you needed to be a leader?
Filed Under Accountability, Employee Engagement, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 3 Comments
Stemming Resource Thievery through Requisite Authority
By Michelle Malay Carter on March 4, 2008
Do You Enable Your Managers to Lead through Systems Design?
Yesterday, I said that the Requisite Organization model posits four minimum managerial authorities that are prerequisites for creating an accountability culture.?
Today, I post another requisite authority necessary for accountability.
Authority Number Two:?
Managers shall assign or authorize all work to direct reports.
No earth shattering news here, right?? The key word is ALL.?
Sometimes Resource Thieves Wear Ties
How often do managers stumble upon their direct reports working on assignment generated by the boss’ boss or by some other department?? Has this happened to you?? Is the unspoken default practice that if anyone higher up the food chain gives you an assignment, you are accountable to work on it?? This seems to be a common (unexamined)?phenomenon in organizations.
Disclaimer:? It appears to be out of vogue to refer to employees as resources, but I’m going for it here because it fits the context.? My psyche is strong enough?to wear the label resource.? I trust yours is too.
Accountability and Authority Are Dance Partners
If we want to hold managers accountable for the work of their team and for integrating the work of their team, they must have the authority to decide and prioritize how the team is spending its time.?
Employees are a resource given to a manager by the manager’s manager.? It is the manager’s accountability to use the resource efficiently and effectively to get their goals accomplished.?
A Leadership System Policy That Should Be Explicit
It is not acceptable to allow a manager’s resources to be arbitrarily or capriciously available to all – at least not if you want to hold the manager accountable for the stewardship of those resources.
Does that mean employees never do work for others?? No.? But it does mean they never do work for others without their manager’s knowledge.? When doing work for others is a common part of the role, this should be codified to eliminate the need to constantly “check with the manager”.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.?
Enable Your Managers to Lead through Systems Design
Does your leadership system give managers the sole authority to manager their direct reports’ time?? Have you ever had your direct reports working on work that was not a priority to you?
Filed Under Accountability, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization | Comments Off on Stemming Resource Thievery through Requisite Authority
Enabling Accountability by Providing Requisite Authority
By Michelle Malay Carter on March 3, 2008
Managers, by definition, are accountable for the output of their teams, but yet there seem to be so many excuses when things go wrong.? Why is that?
Managerial Accountability Requires Managerial Authority
If you want managerial accountability within an organization, you must pair it requisite authority.? Otherwise, you might as well be asking managers to get in line to stick their hand in a meat grinder.? See how many volunteers you get for that.
Creating an Accountability Culture
Elliott Jaques’ Requisite Organization model posits four MINIMUM managerial authorities must be give before you have a hope of creating an accountability culture.? I’ll be discussing each of these over the next few days.
Minimum Managerial Authority Number One
1.? Managers Shall Have the Authority to Veto Appointment of an Unacceptable Candidate
If you want managers to step up to the plate to be accountable for the work of their team, then they must be able to decline when an unacceptable candidate is “offered their way” –? even when it is protected class, Sour Sam who only has two years to go before retirement, or the CEO’s nephew who needs a job for six months until he joins the Peace Corps.
Have you ever had an unacceptable candidate foisted upon you?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Strategy | Comments Off on Enabling Accountability by Providing Requisite Authority
What World Do You Live In? A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 29, 2008
- Where’s the talent?
- Why aren’t employees motivated?
- Why won’t employees innovate?
- Why won’t they cooperate?
It appears that employees are willing to expend their discretionary energy being creative, energetic and working together.?
?So again, I ask – is it the people or the system?
What have you done while bored at work?
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Talent Management | Comments Off on What World Do You Live In? A Friday Funny
Using Peer Groups to Set CEO Compensation? Keep Good Company
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 27, 2008
Many organizations set CEO compensation by?using industry peer groups.? With no differentiation of CEO roles being made by work level, this is a huge problem.
Mark Van Clieaf, an industry colleague of mine, is a recognized expert in applying a level of work approach to organization design, executive succession, and executive compensation.
Matching?CEO Pay?to Work Level?– Was Mozilo’s Pay Fair?
His organization, MVC Associates, was asked by a group of pension fund managers to analyze the compensation of?Angelo R. Mozilo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Countrywide Financial Corporation, from a level of work standpoint, and then review the level of work complexity represented by the peer group used to calibrate Mozilo’s pay package.
Remember, titles are deceiving.? Not all CEO roles are equally complex.? The larger and more complex an organization, the higher the CEO role is in terms of work levels.? Higher work levels merit higher pay using felt fair pay differentials.
Keeping Good Company Pays
Van Clieaf’s findings were that Countrywide was not in the the same league as the five companies used in Mozilo’s pay benchmarking analysis.? Although the peer group companies were in the same broad financial services industry, five peer group companies were found to have a CEO role level at least one work level higher than that of the CEO role at Countrywide.
Skewed Results
The net result of this skewed peer group selection was that?the median for CEO pay of the peer group was erroneously inflated by some 50%.
This problem of executive roles with the same title but different levels of work complexity is a fundamental problem
in the compensation world today.
According to Van Clieaf, none of the major compensation surveys today differentiate between say a CEO or CFO role at work Levels 4 versus 5 versus 6, and thus, all the executive compensation data today at work level 4 and above is distorted and not reliable.
A Work Levels Solution
Levels of work solves this compensation analysis problem by providing a framework and model for work level job leveling and compensation calibration that can lead to more equitable executive compensation decision making if properly applied.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Ultimately, we as participants in the global economy are paying for this misinformed practice.? What shall we do about it??
Filed Under Accountability, Executive Leadership, Felt Fair Compensation, Requisite Organization, Work Levels | 2 Comments
Harvard Business Discovers Level 6 Work – The Strategy of Combining Two Models
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 26, 2008
In a former work levels post on strategy, I discussed how migrating a strategy upward by one level of complexity can give an organization a breakaway lead from its competitors operating at the lower level.?
From “Or” Thinking to “And” Thinking, i.e. From Level 5 to Level 6
My historical example was that the US auto industry in the 1960?s offered EITHER low cost OR quality (Level 5 strategy).? The Japanese raised the bar by raising the complexity level of the strategy by finding a way to offer low cost AND quality(Level 6 strategy).
HBS Working Knowledge has released a working paper: Embracing Commitment and Performance: CEOs and Practices Used to Manage Paradox.? Here is their introduction (emphasis mine):
“We tend to assume that great leaders must make difficult choices between two or more conflicting outcomes. In an interview study with 26 CEOs of top American and European companies (incl. IKEA, Campbell Soups, Nokia, H&M), we find that instead of choosing between conflicting outcomes such as long-term strategy or short-term performance drivers, top tier managers argue that their role is to embrace such paradoxes to make both things happen simultaneously. The study identifies five groups of practices that make this possible.”
Have You Heard?? Six is the New Five
What the authors have stumbled upon and are describing when they say “top tier?managers” is a leader with level 6 capability.?
Differentiating Level 5 from Level 6
A leader with level 6 capability will create a level 6 strategy, i.e. let’s combine two (or more)?strategy models.? A leader with level 5 capability will create a level 5 strategy, i.e. we are going to focus on our (one)?core competency – low cost leader.?
Organizations are Shadows of Their Leaders
Different levels of strategy require (or emanate from) different levels of cognitive capacity.? Additionally, different levels require different CEO compensation.? (I’ll be posting on this later this week.)
A Huge Mistake – All CEO Roles are Equal
Another quote from the article, once again, reinforces the idea of work levels and differing cognitive capability but NOT a recognition that not all CEO roles are equal.? The authors clump all CEO roles together.? The particular size and complexity level of an organization will call for a particular level CEO.
A New Bandwagon to Jump Upon – Level 6 Capability
Now that level 6 capacity has been “discovered”, it suddenly becomes the holy grail.? The authors decide that now ALL CEOs must combine models to be successful, i.e. all CEO roles are level six roles and require level 6 leadership capacity.?
“The CEOs did not (as one might have expected) discuss major choices that needed to be made or the dilemmas that they were facing. Instead of speaking in terms of ?either-or?, they spoke consciously of their ability and understanding of how to do ?both-and?.? They argued that seemingly conflicting outcomes cannot be made the subject of choice, nor can they be balanced. Instead, it is the role of the CEO to embrace the paradoxes and meet both ends at the same time. This is signifying for the leadership that they (at least on an espoused level) try to exercise.”
Embracing paradoxes need NOT be the role of ALL CEOs.? A level 5 organization can do well under the leadership of a level 5 CEO with a single model strategy.
We can continue to look through a glass darkly and muse about the shadows on the cave wall, or we can seek to understand work levels?and find?a level of clarity in understanding strategy, talent management, and organization design not seen to date.? Which will you choose?
Your thoughts?? What level is your organization?
Filed Under Corporate Values, Executive Leadership, Felt Fair Compensation, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Succession Planning, Talent Management, Work Levels | 6 Comments
Organization Design – Seek and Ye Shall Find
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 24, 2008
Thanks to David Zinger of the?Employee Engagement Network who pointed?me toward a stimulating poem by architect Moshe Safdie.
He who seeks truth shall find beauty
He who seeks beauty shall find vanityHe who seeks order shall find gratification
He who seeks gratification shall be disappointedHe who considers himself a servant of his fellow beings shall find the joy of self expression
He who seeks self expression shall fall into the pit of arroganceArrogance is incompatible with nature
Through nature the nature of the universe and the nature of man we shall seek truth
If we seek truth we shall find beauty~ Moshe Safdie
After reading the poem, I decided to use the same format to speak about what organizations should be seeking and not seeking.
Employee Engagement
For example, I think employee engagement is critical but is not a goal in and of itself, but rather, a byproduct of sound organization design and structure.? As such, seeking it directly will be fraught with waste.? So here is my poem for your perusal.
Seek and Ye Shall Find
Organizations that seek to enable will find engagement.
Organizations that seek engagement will find manipulation.Organizations that seek to encourage will find development.
Organizations that seek development will find resistance.Organizations that seek to question will find innovation.
Organizations that seek innovation will find elitism.Organizations that seek to align will find communication.
Organizations that seek communication will find platitudes.Organizations that seek to understand work levels will find leaders.
Organizations that seek leaders will find power mongers.Organizations that seek to clarify will find accountability.
Organizations that seek accountability will find scapegoats.Organizations that seek to be fair will find trust.
Organizations that seek trust will find teambuilding exercises.~ Michelle Malay Carter
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.?
What lines would you add to my poem?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization | 3 Comments
The RFP Courtship Dance – A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 21, 2008
We’ve been talking about RFP’s this week.??You have to admit, the RFP process is essentially a courtship ritual.? The client is busy trying not to act impressed so the consultant doesn’t inflate their prices, while the consultant?gets jazzed at the thought of “winning” more work.?
The unspoken dialog goes something like this:?
Client:? How much do you want us?
Consultant:? Very much.? Very much.
Client:? Enough to provide 26 pages of documentation?
Consultant:? Watch me write – pie charts, graphics, colors.
Client:? Thank you.? We’ve got plenty of consultants to choose from.? Don’t call us.? We’ll call you.
When it’s all said and done, you just hope your client hasn’t attended the praying mantis school of courtship, as the female praying mantis devours her mate after she gets what she needs.
An Emu-sing Video
Have you ever made a fool of yourself to land a client?? You must have attended the emu school of courtship.?
This 30 second video is a hoot.? (Warning:? There is audio too.? Turn down your speakers if you don’t wish to share this with others.)
Filed Under Corporate Values, High Potential, Personal Observation, Strategy | 2 Comments
Have RFPs Become yet Another Proxy for Managerial Leadership?
By Michelle Malay Carter on February 19, 2008
In a noble attempt to stem corruption and to make things objective, we have tried to take the judgment out of the RFP process and turn it into more of a calculation.? We hire people to make judgments; we have calculators for calculating.
I realize there are compliance issues surrounding the need for RFPs, and they make the reviewing process easier by making the proposals more consistent.? Yes, we are to the point where there is a lot of water under the bridge as to why RFPs are structured the way they are, but if we step back and look at the process, do they really say:
We can’t trust our people to act morally, and we don’t trust their overall judgment so we are going to micromanage this process?
There is a character issue here but there is a cognitive capability issue here as well.?
If we are not hiring the appropriate people and we are not tracking their work, is this not a failure of an organization’s managerial leadership system?? Have RFPs become yet another proxy for managerial leadership.? Are they a system for compensating for other poor systems?
A more complex project calls for a higher cognitive capacity to make the kinds of judgments necessary to chose a qualified vendor.? If the decision is made a too low a level, the projects have a higher likelihood of failure.?
So is the solution to ask for excessive minutia in the RFP, or is it?to see that vendor review is carried out by a person at the appropriate level?? (We’re back to the need to understand work levels.)
The problem with asking for excessive minutia in an RFP is that it attracts vendors who enjoy the minutia.? Sometimes this is exactly what you need.
However, if you are looking for a big picture vendor, you won’t find them by asking them to provide you minutia.
Have you ever been?suffered at the hands of an?RFP process?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 6 Comments
Subscribe in a reader